BILL PRESENTED

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum

Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy and Angela Eagle, presented a Bill to make provision about nationality, immigration and asylum; to create offences in connection with international traffic in prostitution; to make provision about international projects connected with migration; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 119].

Point of Order

Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
	On 14 February, I wrote to a Minister at the Department of Health on behalf of a constituent, Mrs. Anne Cann of Crediton, who was concerned, following a report that was commissioned by the Express and Echo newspaper from Exeter university, about the dangers that were perceived to be affecting her household as a result of a nearby telecommunications mast. I followed up with a chaser letter, and, having had no response from the Department of Health at all, I raised the matter in some detail during the debate on the Easter Adjournment.
	It is a matter of great concern to me that despite offering the Department of Health the full report from Exeter university, chasing my correspondence and offering to go to talk to the Minister personally, I have had no response whatsoever after nearly two months. The way in which the Department is treating a serious Back-Bench inquiry is getting close to contempt. Can you give me some advice, Mr. Speaker, on what I can do to assist my constituent?

Mr. Speaker: I am very concerned when I hear complaints about Back Benchers not receiving replies from Ministers. The hon. Lady has put the matter on record, and I look forward to the Minister responding.

Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Power to refuse decree absolute if steps not taken to dissolve religious marriage

Gareth Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out from "Jews" to "must" in line 10.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out from "to" to "House" in line 9 and insert—
	'approval by resolution of each'.
	No. 1, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
	'10B Prescribed religious usages
	The Lord Chancellor shall report annually to Parliament on any representations he has received about the use of section 10A(1)(a)(ii), and whether he intends to make an order under section 10A(6).".'.

Gareth Thomas: I assure the House that in tabling the amendment I am not trying to wreck the Bill or to stop its progress. Indeed, I do not intend to detain hon. Members long on the issues as I have already raised them privately with the Minister and the promoter of the Bill. I realise that they could also be considered in more detail in the House of Lords.
	I tabled the amendment in the spirit of seeking clarification from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who deserves considerable congratulation on his piloting of the Bill through the House. My prime concern relates to the Bill's potential knock-on consequences for other religions in relation to the process that it introduces for consideration of the needs of other religions in similar situations if they arise.
	I have received strong representations in support of the Bill from senior members of the Jewish community, especially senior members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and others who live in my constituency. The Bill is designed to remedy an injustice, with which hon. Members are now familiar, that affects Jewish men and women who want a divorce but are prevented from achieving a civil divorce by the actions of their partners.
	During the previous Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and Lord Lester suggested that the Bill leaves open the possibility that a similar situation may arise in relation to those of the Muslim faith. In Standing Committee on 7 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked whether the Bill applied to the Muslim faith and whether that had been properly consulted on.
	During the previous Parliament, when Lord Lester proposed legislation to achieve a similar result to that sought by my hon. Friend, he highlighted counsel's opinion from a Mr. Rabinder Singh, an expert on human rights law, who had been brought in by the Government to advise on the Bill's compatibility with the European Union convention on human rights. His one concern about the original Bill was whether it was discriminatory in requiring that a religious divorce should be granted before a civil one was obtained for Jewish spouses, but not for Muslim spouses. That may be why the provisions that amendment No. 2 would delete were included in the Bill. According to Lord Lester, Mr. Singh argued that the Bill, by treating a Jewish husband less favourably than a Muslim husband, was potentially discriminatory. He felt that that issue needed resolution if the Bill was to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I seek further clarification from the Minister or from my hon. Friend on whether that is the reason for the provision. The position is certainly unclear.
	In his advice, Mr. Singh said that, in his judgment, Islamic law was similar to Jewish law in this regard. However, Lord Lester quoted from the textbook "Muslim Family Law" by Judge David Pearl and Werner Menski, both of whom are senior figures in the legal world. They explained that English Muslim law requires the husband to give his wife a talaq in order for a divorce to be recognised by Sharia law, and that a woman who obtains a civil divorce but then fails to obtain a talaq is left in a limping marriage, which is similar to the situation of Jewish women who have been refused a get, which was the driving force behind my hon. Friend's Bill.
	Lord Lester argued that, from his understanding of that textbook on Muslim family law, under English Muslim law the United Kingdom Islamic Sharia Council can grant a khula to the wife, which would enable an immediate dissolution of the marriage that would be recognised in Islamic law. Unlike Jewish women in a similar situation, a Muslim woman in a limping marriage could obtain a valid religious divorce against the wishes of her husband.
	My purpose in setting out the position is to ask whether Lord Lester was right in his view. Is there an issue with the Muslim faith or with any other religious faith? Why do we need to give the Government a power to deal with other religions if they do not face this difficulty?
	I have taken the trouble to speak to a number of my constituents. Those of the Hindu faith are clear that there is no problem in their religion on the issue that Jewish women face. My amendment No. 2 would ensure that no other religions were covered by the Bill. My hon. Friend and the Minister should consider whether we need to allow that additional width in the Bill.
	I recognise that the position regarding the Muslim faith may be a little confused. I have spoken to senior Muslim figures in my constituency, who have slightly different views on whether this is an issue. I hope that the Minister and my hon. Friend can clarify the situation. I pray in aid the comments that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) made in Committee. He thought that the question whether the law should intervene in a matter of faith was a philosophical issue. That is an entirely reasonable concern to raise. The Jewish religious authorities are clear that there is a need for intervention, and on that basis it is right that we give additional powers in that respect.
	If there is a problem or the potential for a problem in the Muslim faith, Parliament must recognise that it has a responsibility to improve its response to such a situation. There has perhaps been a collective failure over a number of years, but we have now reached the stage of finally being able to resolve this issue. The Jewish community has had to wait for resolution of this problem at last to be on offer, and I do not want other religions to have to suffer delays in tackling the injustice that has been identified.
	Amendment No. 1 would ensure that there is a duty on the Lord Chancellor to report to the House if other religious authorities raise similar difficulties. Such a requirement on the Lord Chancellor's Department would be a spur to Parliament to act with more speed in future.
	Amendment No. 4 would require approval by both Houses of Parliament using the affirmative resolution procedure. Intervention in religious matters is something that Parliament should not undertake lightly. The involvement of both Houses and the widening of the pool of legal and religious expertise and knowledge is a sensible precaution to ensure that we get the right resolution of these problems. The use of the affirmative resolution procedure would help to clear up any confusion about who the religious authorities were, and would ensure that all sectors of the community would be able to bring their concerns to Members of Parliament so that the right way forward could be found.
	As I said, these are probing amendments. I hope that the Bill will make progress, but we need to be clear that we have the right process in place and that there are sensible opportunities for other religions in a similar situation to bring concerns before the House and for Parliament to act with more speed and more success on this issue than it has until now.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues and for enabling me to explain the background to these provisions.
	By way of preamble, I want to correct him on one point. He referred to the European Union convention on human rights, but the European convention on human rights has nothing to do with the European Union. That is a popular misconception, which I hope is not shared by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The European convention on human rights emanates from the Council of Europe, which is a different body. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the correct constitutional position is explained in the House and to the people at large, because there is much confusion in this country about the European convention and where it comes from. The fact that some people may have certain views about the European Union does not necessarily mean that they have the same views about the Council of Europe and the convention.
	My hon. Friend is right that the provision has been incorporated in the Bill to ensure that it complies with the European convention on human rights and our own human rights legislation. He may be suggesting that that is a belt-and-braces approach, and it may be seen as that, but he gave the reasons for that at the end of his contribution.
	The Bill is designed to deal with the particular problem of divorce within the Jewish community, but it is appropriate to make provision in the legislation should other faiths want to raise their own concerns at a later stage. The mechanism provided by the Bill is designed to deal with the difficulties caused by husbands who refuse to give their wives a get. I am not sure whether other religions have an exact parallel of the problem facing the Jewish community, but the mechanism would be available should that be the case.
	I have received letters from Catholics who are concerned about a possible impact on the Catholic faith, which does not recognise divorce. There is nothing in the Bill that creates a right of divorce—either civil or religious—where one does not already exist. There is nothing for Catholics to worry about in that context. The purpose of the Bill is not to interfere with religion. It is framed to enable civil authorities to deal with a technical problem that has arisen within the Jewish community.
	My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Muslim community. I am grateful to him for bringing to the attention of the House the comments made in another place and in Committee. He has obviously done a great deal of work in researching the law and in discussions with members of the Muslim community in his constituency.
	There has been no demand from members of the Muslim community for provisions similar to those in the Bill to apply to them. The answer may lie in what my hon. Friend says—that within existing arrangements for Sharia law in Britain, a way has been found round the problem, with the Muslim authorities if necessary being able to override the failure of a husband to grant a talaq divorce.
	There is some doubt within some sections of the Muslim community as to whether that is a legitimate approach. There is no guarantee that the practice adopted by the Muslim authorities in Britain will continue indefinitely. However, a provision is available should the Muslim community come forward with a clear consensus that there should be implementation. I perceive no demand for that at present.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the position of Roman Catholics. Has he had consultation with Church authorities, or is he merely referring to representations that have come from individuals within his constituency, or others?

Andrew Dismore: I am referring to representations from individual correspondents, not from my constituency but from one or two other places. A problem has not been perceived. I have received two or three letters.
	I return to my main point, which is that there is nothing in the Bill that creates a new right of divorce or interferes with rights of religion in that connection. There is nothing to worry about. That is probably why I have not received any correspondence from Roman Catholic authorities. I know from previous experience in this place that they are not slow to come forward if they feel that their faith is likely in any way to be affected by activities in the House.
	We are dealing with a provision that I hope will never have to be used. If it has to be used, that will show a change of approach from the more progressive attitude that has been adopted by the Muslim community in finding a way round the problem.
	It is worth understanding why there is a problem for the Jewish community. Jewish law goes back much further than 2,000 years in this context and it cannot be changed. The situation goes back to the destruction of the temple by Titus, son of Vespasian, in 70 AD. To change Jewish law, there has to be a Sanhedrin, which is a gathering of the rabbis, which can take place only in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple having been destroyed, there cannot be a Sanhedrin, so the fundamental tenets of Jewish law cannot be changed. That means that we must devise other ways to overcome what is perceived as a problem within the Jewish community. As far as I am aware—no doubt my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—a similar problem does not apply within the Muslim faith.
	We need the provision so that if a problem is identified in future, we will not have to go through the rigmarole of taking new legislation through Parliament. There will already be provisions available to deal with the problem. As I have said, there is no sign that there is a problem, and there has been no demand for change.
	To deal with my hon. Friend's point about the affirmative resolution procedure, let me say that there will be no prospect of change unless there is a clear consensus throughout a faith that there should be change.
	The proposal that relates to Jewish divorce, which the Bill is designed to deal with, has the unanimous support of Jewish authorities. There is a clear consensus behind the Bill throughout the Jewish community. There is no argument or debate about whether it is the right thing to do. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's Department for its support for the Bill. I am pretty sure—no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will make this absolutely clear—that there is no question of the clause being activated if there is no clear consensus within any other particular faith. As I have said, I am not aware of any particular demand for that at present.

Rosie Winterton: I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has moved the amendments in the spirit of probing and certainly not that of wrecking. I know how hard he has worked in campaigning for the Bill and the changes that it will make. He has made representations to me and I know how strongly he feels about the issue.
	The effect of amendment No. 2 would be to limit the scope of the Bill to Jewish religious marriages. I understand that my hon. Friend has some concerns about the compatibility of the Bill with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government's view is that the amendment would make the Bill less likely to comply with that Act.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of Muslim women. It might be helpful if I reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). The position of Muslim women differs from that of Jewish women in respect of religious divorce. Where the husband has pronounced the talaq and any subsequent procedures required by law have been completed, the marriage is at an end. After the divorce, the wife is obliged to refrain from marriage for a period, which is commonly held to be four months and 10 days. Once that period is completed, there are no religious restrictions on the woman remarrying.
	Perhaps I should clarify and confirm that where a Muslim woman wants a religious divorce it is open to her, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, to approach the Muslim Law Shariah Council to ask for the marriage to be dissolved. Sonia Nurin Shah-Kazemi of the university of Westminster, in her paper entitled "Untying the Knot—Muslim Women, Divorce and the Shariah", states:
	"Unlike the legal situation of women in the Jewish community, civil law mechanisms are not necessary for Muslim women to dissolve their marriage contracts."
	Perhaps I can recommend that paper to my hon. Friend.
	The Government would still be willing to consider any representations that the Muslim community may wish to make on this issue. However, we are confident that the position differs in terms of the Jewish and Muslim faiths.
	The amendment would make the Bill identical in scope to a Bill that was introduced in another place by Lord Lester of Herne Hill in 2000. The Government suggested amendments to it in the light of legal advice that limiting the measure to only one religious group would risk offending against article 14—the right of freedom from discrimination—together with article 12—the right of freedom to marry—of the European convention on human rights. The Government believe that the Bill as drafted is fully compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and, therefore, with the convention.
	Amendment No. 4 would substitute the affirmative resolution procedure for the negative resolution procedure in the event that the Lord Chancellor makes a statutory instrument under clause 1(6) extending the provisions of the Bill to other religious groups. The Government's view is that the negative resolution procedure represents the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny in this case.
	The Government have made it clear, and I am happy to assure the House today, that the Lord Chancellor would make such an order to extend the provisions of the Bill to other religious groups only where they requested it. The Lord Chancellor would want to be satisfied that such a request represented a consensus of the appropriate religious authorities and community leaders of any groups concerned. There is no question of the Government seeking to foist the provisions on any group that does not wish to have them.
	The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to require the Lord Chancellor to make an annual report to Parliament on any representations he had received on extending the provisions of the Bill to other faith groups, and to indicate whether he intends to make such an order extending its provisions.

William Cash: The references to "religion" and "religious" are somewhat controversial because some sects' and faiths' description of themselves as religious is hotly disputed. Do the Government intend to analyse that and work out whether the provisions should apply to recognised religions? After all, the request could come from almost anyone.

Rosie Winterton: Of course, the Lord Chancellor would have to be satisfied that any representations represented the views not only of many within any religious group, but community leaders. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there would be wide consultation before any decision was made to extend the provisions to other groups.
	The Government's view is that amendment No. 1 is unnecessary. In the event that the Lord Chancellor received representations—again, I assure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that they would have to be of a sufficiently authoritative nature—from religious groups asking for the legislation to be extended to them, a statutory instrument would be required. Parliament would then have an opportunity to scrutinise the instrument through the negative resolution procedure.

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend out with the intervention from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point that, although there can obviously be difficulties in deciding whether a particular organisation is a religion or not, it can only be brought within the terms of the Bill if the Lord Chancellor believes it to be a religion. Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Lord Chancellor and to decide whether they agree.

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was exactly the point that I was coming on to make. Through that process, Parliament would have the opportunity to make representations, if there were any worries about the nature of any group. I reiterate that there is no question either of the Bill being foisted on religious groups or of Parliament not having the opportunity for further scrutiny of any decisions. I hope that with those reassurances, my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to both my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for their words of clarification. I will of course withdraw the amendment as it was intended to be a probing amendment. I do so with one reservation. I will re-read the paper from the legal expert at the university of Westminster. As the university is close to my constituency, I recognise all the more the importance of that paper. I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will be able to clarify the views of the Muslim religious authorities before the Bill makes its passage through the other place.
	I wish the Bill speedy progress through the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to move that the Bill be read the Third time. The Bill is not a new idea. This is the third attempt in which I have been involved to take it through the House. It is the second attempt that I have made personally. The first attempt was when I tried to take through the House the Bill that had been introduced in another place by Lord Lester. On the two previous occasions, the Bill failed through lack of time.
	I am doubly pleased, as this is a ten-minute Bill. To be able to take a ten-minute Bill through all the stages in the House is quite an accomplishment and could be achieved only because of the broad consensus that the Bill has been able to attract from all sides of the House and from all hon. Members.
	I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department and indeed the Lord Chancellor himself, and for the support that the Bill has been able to attract from all the Opposition parties. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who may have had reservations about the Bill but now seems to be convinced of its merits.
	The Bill will remedy a major disadvantage suffered by Jewish men and women who are prevented from remarrying because of the refusal of their partners to grant or accept a religious divorce. In practice, the disadvantage is usually suffered by the wife, rather than the husband.
	The basic Jewish laws relating to marriage and divorce are biblical, and theoretically, as I mentioned on Report, can be changed only by a Sanhedrin. As there has not been a Sanhedrin for nearly 2,000 years, it is important that we see what we can do through the civil law to deal with this particular problem.
	In Jewish law, marriage and divorce are consensual processes. An individual cannot be married or divorced against his or her will. Although that encourages a couple to try to work together to solve their difficulties, which obviously is a worthwhile objective and an outcome that we would all like to see, occasionally there can be problems where one party seeks to end the marriage, and the other refuses to grant the religious divorce, called in Hebrew a get.
	The husband has to go before a Beth Din, a Jewish court, personally or by proxy, to have the get document written and prepared. It must then be delivered to his wife. Only when she receives it from him can a divorce take effect. If the husband fails to do so, the wife cannot remarry in Jewish law, although the husband may be able to do so in limited cases.
	Jewish authorities have long been sensitive to the problem, especially where it is the wife who is trapped in a marriage that she seeks to end. She is called, in Hebrew, an agunah—the plural is agunot—meaning one who is chained to a spouse against her will.
	An active campaign organisation, the agunot campaign, has been operating for a number of years to bring pressure to bear. It works hard to publicise the practical effects of the injustices of the present laws and to embarrass reluctant husbands into compliance.
	There have been attempts to deal with the problem. Two rabbis in the United States have been granting annulments anyway, despite the lack of co-operation of the husbands. However, those American rabbis have a different interpretation of Jewish law, which is not accepted as a valid interpretation by Orthodox Jewish authorities anywhere in the world. Even with such an annulment, remarriage remains impossible within the Jewish faith.
	Through its rabbinical courts, the Jewish community in Britain has done all it can internally to alleviate the situation. It has brought in prenuptial agreements, currently signed by the majority of couples. The agreement binds them, should their marriage fail, to attend a Jewish court to resolve their outstanding differences.

William Cash: The Bill does not extend to Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on that?

Andrew Dismore: I intended to mention Scotland later in my speech. Family law, in this context, is a devolved responsibility for the Scottish Parliament. There have been discussions in Scotland about whether such a provision should be brought in. I would very much hope that the Scottish Parliament, which is now a little behind the English Parliament in this context, will take our example and propose similar legislation as promptly as possible.

Jim Murphy: I pay tribute to the efforts made by my hon. Friend on his Bill but, in the spirit of correction and accuracy, may I remind him that this is the British Parliament and not the English Parliament?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is the British Parliament but, in this context, it is legislating only for England and Wales. My hon. Friend is quite right to correct me on the constitutional niceties. Having corrected my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on the constitutional niceties of European law, I am hoist by my own petard.
	The prenuptial agreement can be only a voluntary undertaking and there is considerable doubt whether it can have legal effect as a matter of civil law. Synagogue bodies have tried to institute communal sanctions against recalcitrant spouses. However, a determined spouse can simply ignore those, driven by the ill-will that often accompanies divorce. A well-publicised example of this was the case at the end of 2000, when a rabbi took an advertisement in the Jewish Chronicle to name and shame a recalcitrant husband, but that did not achieve the objective.
	More recently, there is now a regular Sunday morning picket, which I joined last year, organised by the agunot campaign outside the house of a Golders Green husband who has refused to grant his wife a get for decades. A civil divorce on the grounds of cruelty was granted in 1962. There was a terrible custody battle and arguments over access in which the husband felt aggrieved at his wife, who took the daughter out of the jurisdiction for a number of years. Now, 40 years on, the husband still refuses to release his wife, despite the extensive publicity given to the case.
	It can be appreciated that Jewish women who wish to conduct their family relationships within the framework of their religious beliefs have virtually no power to compel a reluctant husband to grant them a get. Without a get, a divorcee who has a child by her subsequent partner—even if married in civil law—is defined as an adulteress under Jewish law. The child is classed as a mamzer, an illegitimate outcast. This stigma lasts for many future generations, affecting the child's own descendants for centuries.
	If a wife refuses to accept her husband's get, he is known as an agun. However, he does not suffer from the same disadvantages as a woman, as status in Jewish law passes through the female and not the male line, and biblical law makes different provisions in relation to men and to women.
	The consequences of that go beyond the right of a wife to remarry. As a result of the husband's right to withhold a get, a lack of balance is created in negotiations around family breakdown, often over ancillary relief or child custody arrangements. A husband can effectively hold his wife to ransom, and can demand money, property or other unfair or inappropriate rights concerning custody or child maintenance in return for the get.
	There are no reliable statistics of the total number of women affected, but seven cases in the Hendon area have been referred to me as the constituency MP. No doubt there are others in my own constituency of which I am unaware and throughout the Jewish community nationwide. It is difficult to get a grip on the figures, because much stigma is still attached to the problem. Some of the cases reported to me illustrate the problems that arise. I referred to them on Second Reading and I do not propose to do so again; anyone who wants to familiarise themselves with these tragic cases can read the Official Report.
	The Bill will not help every woman in these tragic circumstances. If the husband does not want or need a civil divorce, or a civil divorce has already been granted in the past—the Bill cannot be retrospective—the problem will remain. This is the sad position of a number of women active in the agunot campaign. However, the Bill will provide a real remedy for women in the future who are confronted with these problems, such as those in the cases that I have previously described, if any civil proceedings have not reached decree absolute. It rectifies a serious anomaly in English civil law, which creates this extremely undesirable state of affairs for future cases where civil proceedings have not commenced or been finalised.
	The Bill enables the court to require the dissolution of the religious marriage before granting a civil divorce. This provides a lever, whereby pressure could be brought to bear on the husband to agree to a get. Where he unjustly refuses to co-operate, he would not be granted a civil divorce, which is normally sufficient for his purposes, without first agreeing to a religious divorce, which his wife needs to avoid the stigma that I described. The playing field for ancillary relief would also be levelled, avoiding the risk of blackmail over financial settlements or custody or access to children.
	Similar provisions have been enacted previously but were not brought into force for reasons wholly unconnected with this Bill, as a result of the previous reform of family law. Similar provisions already apply in parts of Canadian, South African and New York state law, and are currently under consideration in Scotland. The Bill would not solve all cases, but it would resolve many, where the husband needs a civil divorce.
	It is also important to understand that the Jewish community is not seeking the assistance of the civil law to solve a Jewish problem. First, the community seeks to end the anomaly whereby a Jewish marriage is also a civil marriage, but a civil divorce may be unaccompanied by a Jewish divorce. Secondly, the Jewish community is seeking the assistance of the civil courts in bringing the couple to a Jewish court, which itself undertakes to resolve the dispute, allowing both parties to remarry according to their religious convictions.
	The Bill has the support of all synagogue bodies in Anglo-Jewry, Orthodox and Progressive, as well as the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Marriage Council and the agunot campaign.
	I conclude by expressing my thanks and appreciation to the many people who have written to me in support of the Bill and especially those who have given me such active and vigorous help. First, I thank the Chief Rabbi for his personal encouragement and support—particularly after the two previous failed attempts—to persevere with the campaign for reform. I thank Judy Nagler and Jeremy Newmark from the Chief Rabbi's office. I wish to thank my constituent and friend, the president of the Board of Deputies, Mrs. Jo Wagerman, for her help. Neville Nagler and Fiona MacCauley from the board have also been of assistance.
	Jeffrey Blumenfeld of the Jewish Marriage Council gave me help in identifying the sad and tragic cases that I have used to illustrate the real need for the Bill. Gloria Proops of the agunot campaign, while realising that most of her members would not benefit for the reasons that I have given, has nevertheless supported my efforts to help women who may suffer similar problems to her members.
	I must also thank my legal advisers, Dayan Berkovits of the Federation of Synagogues, Miss Eleanor Platt QC and, perhaps above all, Judge Myrella Cohen QC, my constituent, who has spent many patient hours explaining the intricacies of Jewish law and custom to me, proving to me how a millennia-old problem could be considerably eased by a modest measure such as this. I am grateful for her considerable talent for diplomatically correcting my various drafts and comments over the months as I have been working on the Bill.
	I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), without whose tireless efforts behind the scenes we might not have been able to reach Third Reading today. In that context, I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has also been co-operative behind the scenes on behalf of the Opposition.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

William Cash: I am glad to be able to say that the Opposition support the Bill, which seeks to rectify an anomaly that exists in English law. Currently, religious marriage between two Jews is recognised by the state as creating a civil marriage, provided that notice has been given to a superintendent registrar. The religious marriage creates a duel bond, both civil and religious, yet in dissolving that dual bond, the state only requires that there should be a civil divorce, leaving the religious marriage intact and limping on. The parties are left in a state of limbo, unable to remarry in an Orthodox religious ceremony until the husband grants his wife a get, or bill of religious divorce. If the husband refuses to give his wife a get, she is known as an agunah, or chained wife, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) pointed out.
	The current proposal has the support of virtually the entire Jewish community. During its initial stage, before the 1996 legislation was passed—that legislation was never brought into operation because it was included in part II of the Family Law Act 1996, which the Government intend to repeal—a meeting was convened by the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies, at which representatives of the six main Orthodox and Reform movements were present. They are all united in supporting the proposed legislation. This is perhaps the first time that so comprehensive an array of support has been assembled.
	Some have argued that the problem is internal to the Jewish community, so it should be solved within it. In fact, the Jewish community, through the initiative of the Chief Rabbi, has instituted unprecedented measures to alleviate the problem of individuals whose spouses refuse to grant or receive a Jewish bill of divorce, known as a get. They include a pre-nuptial agreement, currently signed by the majority of couples marrying under the aegis of the Chief Rabbi; communal sanctions against recalcitrant spouses; a taskforce whose remit includes pre-marital counselling for couples; relationship education in schools; and the training of mediators to resolve difficult cases. It should be put on record that the Chief Rabbi himself has intervened to resolve some of the most difficult cases.
	The British Jewish community has done as much as it can—perhaps more than any other Jewish community in the world—to alleviate the problem. However, in the final analysis, Jewish communities in modern nation states are voluntary associations. They have no way, other than through education and persuasion, of changing the minds of determined individuals such as those to which the hon. Member for Hendon referred. That is why they seek the assistance of English law to end, or at least to mitigate, the anomaly whereby a civil divorce may proceed in the absence of a Jewish divorce, thus leaving one partner—usually the woman—unable to remarry.
	It is wrong to say, however, that the rabbinate has not done all that it can to resolve the problem. It has recognised the need for action and, as far as possible within the parameters of Jewish law, it has taken action. Beyond that it cannot go. The assistance of the courts would be a powerful step forward, and would alleviate much human misery. We therefore give our support to the proposals.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said that his Bill enjoys all-party support, and that is certainly true as far as I am concerned. I was not privileged to work on his Committee, but I have read his cogent, well written, well argued and compelling article explaining the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that a powerful humanitarian case exists. A small number of women are subject to considerable misery, and the legislation will alleviate their difficulty without causing detriment to anyone else. That seems an admirable basis for proceeding.
	Before I came to the Chamber, I had some slight doubts, which were captured in the discussion prompted by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). However, the Minister's answers, particularly in relation to the Catholic Church—the need for consensus, and the fact that no changes will be imposed on other religions—satisfied my doubts. Although it is not sufficient to persuade me to oppose the Bill, something still troubles me slightly, however: the principle—attributed to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—of our legislating in respect of other religions, even where consensus exists.
	I shall illustrate the point with a hypothetical case. I am a non-Catholic who married a Catholic woman. Unfortunately, she has since died, but we had a very happy and loving marriage. We got married in a Catholic church, and beforehand I went along for instruction. It was clearly explained to me that the nature of marriage in the Catholic faith is that marriage is for life. As I said, our marriage was happy and loving, and the issue of divorce never arose.
	Let us suppose, however, that I had been a different man in a different situation, and that I went off with another woman, or abused my wife, and obtained a civil divorce. My wife would then have been in an invidious position, because the Church would not have recognised the divorce. She might well have wanted to remarry—to marry another devout Catholic and bring up children in the faith—but she would have been unable to do so because her divorce would not have been recognised.

Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vincent Cable: Let me finish the point, so that the hon. Gentleman can consider whether he still wants to intervene. In practice, there would have been no problem, as mechanisms exist—annulments, and so on—that humane priests can use. However, in such a situation a woman could encounter a wall of theological difficulty. A priest could say, "Well, my dear, I sympathise entirely with your position, but you entered into the relationship voluntarily. Membership of this Church is voluntary—you do not have to belong—and you will have to resolve your problem somewhere else." She might get angry and say, "I'm going to talk to my MP. I have heard about a law relating to the Jewish faith. I am in the same position as a Jewish woman, so why can't Parliament change the law to solve my problem? It's unfair." The priest could reply, "I cannot accept that principle. Why should a group of atheists, Anglicans, Methodists, Jews and Muslims prescribe the law internal to my Church?"
	In practice, there is no problem, because—as the hon. Member for Hendon has stressed—the Church authorities have expressed no concern. Moreover, as the Minister said, matters would have to proceed by consensus. None the less, I have slight doubts as to why Parliament—a multi-faith body—is legislating in respect of the internal affairs of a particular Church.

Andrew Dismore: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's point relatively quickly. The Jewish faith recognises divorce and remarriage within the faith, but the Catholic Church does not. We are trying to enable Jewish women to remarry within the faith—at the moment, they are prevented from doing so—but the situation does not arise within the Catholic faith because it does not recognise divorce and remarriage per se.

Vincent Cable: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood me—I am not trying to object to his Bill. He is absolutely right to draw that distinction, and as he stressed earlier, the Catholic Church and other faiths that do not recognise divorce have raised no objections to his Bill. However, there is a deeper issue—it is in no sense an objection to the Bill—that we should all bear in mind. We are legislating for the internal affairs of a particular religion and faith, regardless of our own religion, and we should do so with some trepidation and care.

Louise Ellman: Although the hon. Gentleman's point has some validity, in this instance the call for Parliament to intervene comes from established Jewish authorities, including the Chief Rabbi. Given the circumstances, does he accept that the proposed course of action is the correct one?

Vincent Cable: It is entirely correct, and I have no objection to the Bill, which is properly and narrowly drawn, and correct both morally and legally. I simply reiterate that there is an underlying issue of principle. We are dealing with a religion to which most of us do not belong, so we should take care and think about the far-reaching action that we are taking. None the less, I fully support the Bill and applaud the hon. Member for Hendon for introducing it. I am happy to associate my colleagues with it.

Linda Perham: I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill last autumn, and I am proud to sponsor it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, its purpose is to correct a great injustice suffered by Jewish women in particular. Many Jewish people live in my Ilford, North constituency and the London borough of Redbridge.

Mike Gapes: As my hon. Friend knows, I am her constituency neighbour. Many of my Ilford, South constituents will be similarly delighted at the introduction of this Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). It is long overdue and I congratulate him on introducing it.

Linda Perham: I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's support. I know that he shares our views, and my local Jewish community is pleased that—hopefully—the matter will be concluded this time.
	I shared in the Israel independence day celebrations at Sinclair house—an excellent facility in my constituency—and I hope to do so again in a few days' time. I have visited it on many occasions since my time as a local councillor and mayor of the borough in 1994. At Sinclair house last September, I spoke at the annual meeting of Jewish Women's Aid. Many women present asked me about the Bill's progress and were anxious about it, and they told me how important it is to get the Bill through this time. Indeed, Jewish women constituents have come to me with problems arising from their inability to obtain a get.
	I feel strongly that the issue involves not just religion, but human rights—equal rights between men and women who have entered the partnership of marriage. In the week in which I have celebrated my 30th wedding anniversary, I count myself most fortunate that my husband and I have enjoyed a long and happy marriage. I can only imagine the misery and despair of people trapped in a failing relationship from which there seems no escape. I feel compassion for the situation and circumstances in which so many have found themselves over the years, bound against their will into a marriage that has effectively ended.
	I feel particularly strongly about Jewish women being stigmatised in a way that Jewish men are not—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned—in that a divorcee who has a child in a new relationship is branded an adulteress and her child illegitimate. I especially welcome the support of all the agencies to which he referred, such as the Board of Deputies and all the synagogue bodies in Anglo-Jewry.
	The support of the Chief Rabbi is also appreciated. I am a vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, and in a letter to the organisation's director the Chief Rabbi says that he is
	"deeply appreciative of the support MPs and Peers from all sides of the House have shown."
	He also refers to the Bill as a "much needed measure".
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon on introducing the Bill. He has already earned the praise of the Jewish community in his successful campaign to establish holocaust memorial day in this county, and his Bill deserves to pass into statute. He is one of many of us who give the lie to those who believe that Back Benchers cannot make a difference. I hope that the House gives the measure its full support.

Jim Murphy: I take great pleasure in supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is one of the most assiduous Back Benchers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) said, he has already achieved recognition throughout the country for holocaust memorial day and I hope that he achieves the important, but perhaps less high profile, objective of securing support for this private Member's Bill.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, it is highly unusual for a ten-minute Bill to clear all the hurdles that are placed before it and garner support across the parties and throughout the country. On that, I congratulate him. The only problem is that my local Jewish community has asked, "How come he has managed to secure two substantial changes in Government policy and attitudes when you have achieved none?". That is an issue for the electorate come the election. Nevertheless, I support the proposals before the House, not only because the Bill is important in protecting Jewish women, but because it deals with human rights.
	From my perspective, marriage is a meeting of equals and an equal partnership. Unfortunately, as Jewish law currently stipulates, when a marriage breaks up, for whatever reason, it ceases to be an arrangement of equals. There appears to be an inbuilt discrimination against the woman.
	The Bill represents a learning experience for me, as I do not practise the Jewish faith. I am a Roman Catholic. When a marriage in the Jewish faith breaks up, the man has to go to a Beth Din court, either in person or by proxy, and the ethos of the Jewish faith dictates that the woman becomes an agunah, or chained, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said.
	Children of the wife born in any future relationship are discriminated against and considered to be illegitimate, so the Bill is welcome not only for the women who are chained in marriages that no longer exist and which they no longer wish to be in, but for the children of such women. It will remove the stigma of illegitimacy. It is also necessary, even though Anglo-Jewry and the synagogue bodies have done all they can to mitigate the worst excesses of religious rulings and Jewish law.
	I do not wish to make a habit of doing so, but may I correct my hon. Friend on one point? He is right to say that Jewish marriage and divorce laws are biblical and can be affected only by a Sanhedrin, the assembly of rabbis, and the temple of Jerusalem. He said that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, but my reading suggests that it was destroyed in 74 AD. That is not a reason for me to fall out with him or to fail to support his Bill, but simply my attempt to inform my Jewish constituents that my hon. Friend is not always right.

Andrew Dismore: I thought that 74 AD was the right date, but I received several letters correcting me, saying that it is 70 AD. Last night, I checked the history books, and my researcher said that it is 70 AD. I suspect that, in those days, the calendar was probably flexible.

Jim Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. Perhaps we can split the difference.
	I have a number of other points to make about the Bill and the Minister's thoughtful response to the amendments. In particular, I welcome the comments in respect of the Muslim faith and other faiths. I have the good fortune to represent a significant Muslim community and I welcome the commitment that the Lord Chancellor will ascertain whether there is widespread support in any other faith and among leaders of any other faith before any aspects of this or future Bills in any way affect or apply to any other recognised faith.
	In respect of Roman Catholicism and divorce, it is my strong view that there are many good and practising Roman Catholics who are separated, divorced or remarried. That is my perspective on my faith, and I think no less of those who have had to face that tough choice as Catholics. Nevertheless, I am certain that the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the Minister will reassure the Catholic Church and Catholic agencies that their religious laws and our religious beliefs are not indirectly or unintentionally affected by the Bill, particularly in the absence of any serious or considerable consultation. The comments made this morning will be welcomed by the leaders of my faith.
	The issue of Scotland has already attracted attention in the debate. I do not wish to chastise my hon. Friend for calling this the English Parliament; he is in good company. I hope I am not straying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the BBC unfortunately often calls this the English Parliament. I wish to put that marker down for my hon. Friend and others.

William Cash: A number of comments were made about this earlier. There were references to a British Parliament and some references to an English Parliament, but—speaking as shadow Attorney-General—I want to put on record the fact that this is the United Kingdom Parliament. Let us leave it at that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have strayed far enough.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is of course right. No doubt it pleases him that at least we are not talking about the European Parliament.
	As has been said, there have been discussions about the position in Scotland. As my constituency contains approximately 80 per cent. of Scotland's entire Jewish community, there has been considerable discussion there. I have spoken to my Member of the Scottish Parliament, who is keen for similar legislation to apply in Scotland.
	Although this aspect of family law has already been devolved to Scotland, the opportunities represented by Bills of this kind are broadly welcomed across the political divide. They can easily be amended to apply to Scotland. A relatively new procedure known as the Sewel motion, named after Lord Sewel, would simply require the insertion of the word "Scotland". Indeed, we were recently able to do that with the Proceeds of Crime Bill. If this Bill attracts the consensus in Scotland that it has attracted so far in the rest of the United Kingdom, perhaps such an arrangement could be considered in the other place. I see no reason, relating to law, religion or the level of support, for this welcome measure not to apply throughout the United Kingdom. All Jewish women and their future children could then enjoy the same rights and the same legal and religious protection.

Rudi Vis: I shall speak for less than a minute.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whose constituency is next to mine, has made many people in Hendon pleased that he has made such good progress with the Bill. Many people in Finchley and Golders Green feel the same.
	My hon. Friend thanked a number of people for their assistance. He has spent an enormous amount of time on research, and I congratulate him sincerely on the way in which he has pushed the Bill through.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on his strong commitment to this important issue, and on the skill and determination that he has shown in piloting his Bill through the House. I echo the tribute that he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty).
	A number of Members have spoken, including my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). I was moved by the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North contrasted her 30 years of happy marriage—on which I congratulate her again—with the tragic tales brought to her surgery by constituents, and the dealings she has had with this difficult issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood mentioned Scotland. His comments will be taken on board, which I hope will ensure that the campaign is as successful in Scotland as it has been here.
	I do not want to let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). He cannot speak for himself—unusually—but he has made a number of representations to me about the issue.
	The support from Opposition parties is extremely welcome and will be appreciated by all, especially members of the Jewish community who have made representations.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) also made a moving speech. I understand his concerns, but I can reassure him that the Bill does not seek to change Jewish religious law or to interfere with its interpretation. It amends only the civil law, in order to place Jewish men and women who seek divorce on an equal footing.
	The Government are certainly sympathetic in regard to the difficulties experienced by some Jewish women who are prevented from remarrying in a religious ceremony because their husbands refuse to grant them a religious divorce, known as a get. Jewish women in that position have been described as "chained women trapped in limping marriages". Our aim, which applies to all families, is to ensure that if marriages break down acrimony can be reduced for all concerned—especially, of course, the children. Limping marriages are far from that ideal, and we are very aware of the distressing consequences for such women and their children.
	This is a short and straightforward Bill with an important aim. It seeks to remedy the injustice and suffering experienced by chained women and their children. Some Jewish women who obtain a civil divorce from a spouse who refuses to grant them the religious divorce—the get—can face grave difficulties. According to orthodox interpretations of Jewish religious law, a woman who does not obtain a get is still considered to be married, regardless of any civil divorce. The get is therefore essential if the marriage is to be properly dissolved for the purposes of Jewish religious law. Orthodox Jewish women who obtain a civil divorce, but whose husbands refuse to give them a get, may not remarry in a religious ceremony in a synagogue.
	Chained women may suffer other serious consequences because of their husbands' refusal to give them a get. If a chained woman sought to remarry in, say, a civil ceremony without obtaining a get, her marriage would not be regarded as a valid Jewish marriage and any children of the union would be regarded as illegitimate, a status that would last for 10 generations.
	Women who wish to remain part of the orthodox Jewish religious community can be put in an invidious position if their husbands choose to abuse the religious law in this way. They can be forced to choose between observing the laws and practices required by their religious faith, and the freedom to remarry and make a fresh start with a new spouse.
	I am certainly no theologian, and I am not an expert in Jewish religious law; but I know that there are major obstacles in the way of the Jewish religious authorities' ability to resolve the problem of limping marriages without the assistance of the civil law. I feel that I am probably getting into dangerous waters now. Nevertheless, I intend to plough on and stand to be corrected on any of the dates that I may give.
	As I understand it, the issue could be resolved only by the re-establishment of a supreme rabbinical court known as a Sanhedrin. The last time that such a body was in existence was nearly 2,000 years ago. This is where it gets difficult. The last Sanhedrin ceased to exist with the destruction of the temple by the Romans under the Emperor Vespasian in 70 AD. Those are the facts that I have. I am happy to settle for 72 AD.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that it was under the Emperor Vespasian, who seized power after the year of the four Emperors arising out of the chaos of the succession following the assassination of Nero. In fact, however, the destruction was carried out by Vespasian's son, Titus, who later became Emperor in his own right—the second Emperor of the Flavian dynasty.

Rosie Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend. I knew it was a mistake to go down this route. If I may, I shall stick to 70 AD. I did refer to events under Emperor Vespasian.
	Given the difficulties in this area, I am sure that the House will appreciate that there would be considerable problems in reconstituting such a body today. That is why the Jewish community has asked for the assistance of Parliament to alleviate the suffering of those trapped in limping marriages.
	I should, perhaps, point out that not all the victims of limping marriages are women; there are cases in which wives have refused to agree to religious divorces. In those circumstances, Jewish men will be able to benefit from the provisions of this Bill. I understand, however, that the consequences of not complying with Jewish religious law in obtaining a get before re-marriage are more severe and enduring for women than for men.
	I have heard of a number of very distressing cases in which husbands have refused to agree to a religious divorce for many years, thereby effectively depriving some Jewish women of the opportunity to re-marry and have children with a new spouse, to which many hon. Members have referred. The ability of husbands to withhold a get from their wives has also led to some situations that can be described only as blackmail. In those cases, husbands have used the threat of withholding the get to achieve a more advantageous financial settlement on divorce or to force women to agree to iniquitous terms relating to the children of the marriage. There are also cases in which husbands have demanded a cash payment in return for agreeing to a religious divorce.
	I am aware that many in the Jewish community have sought to address the problems experienced by chained women by applying moral and other pressures to recalcitrant husbands. In some cases, this has led to the social ostracism and even the picketing of the businesses of some individuals in particularly notorious cases, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon referred. I am sure that all parts of the House, and the Jewish community, would prefer matters relating to marriage and the family to be dealt with in other less confrontational and stressful ways. This Bill will assist in that.
	Leading representatives of the Jewish community, including the Chief Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks and members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, have put a very compelling case to the Government on the need for a provision that will provide a remedy for the difficulties faced by some Jewish women when seeking a religious divorce. Last September, I had the pleasure of meeting Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Her Honour Judge Dawn Freedman, Tayla Singer and other members of the Jewish Marriage Council. I am extremely grateful to members of the council for assisting me in understanding the issues that this Bill seeks to address. I also met Her Honour Myrella Cohen QC and Eleanor Platt QC of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who have worked so hard on behalf of chained women in the Jewish community. I understand that they gave much assistance to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. The type of advice that they were able to give me was invaluable in understanding the complex issues in this difficult area.
	As many hon. Members have said, the Bill would enable the court, when it considers it appropriate, to order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration is made by both parties that they have taken the necessary steps to obtain a religious divorce. That would mean that the legal divorce would not be finalised until the religious divorce had been provided. The effect of the Bill is therefore to place the parties on an equal footing; neither would be able to re-marry until both agreed to a religious divorce and, after a religious divorce, both would be free to re-marry in a synagogue in a religious ceremony. Although the number of chained women is small, it is important to assist people in such tragic circumstances.
	As other hon. Members have said, the Bill reflects the contents of a Bill that was introduced in another place by the noble Lord Lester of Herne Hill in 2000. That Bill was unable to complete its passage, however, due to a shortage of parliamentary time. The Government suggested amendments to that Bill during its passage to ensure that it would comply with the European convention on human rights. Those changes are reflected in this Bill.
	As the House may also be aware, provisions similar to those introduced in this Bill are contained in section 9(3) and (4) of part II of the Family Law Act 1996. On 16 January last year, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced that, based on evidence from pilots and from concerns expressed by the judiciary and others about complexity and delay, the Government were not satisfied that it would be right to proceed with the implementation of part II. The Lord Chancellor also announced that he proposed to invite Parliament to repeal the relevant sections of the Family Law Act 1996 once a suitable legislative opportunity occurs. We remain committed to the principles set out in part I of the Act, namely, saving saveable marriages, and bringing marriages that have broken down to an end with the minimum distress to the parties and children affected.
	In that respect, the Lord Chancellor's Department is taking forward many initiatives, such as providing information leaflets and parenting plans for divorcing and separating couples, and establishing family advice and information networks to ensure that the principles of part I of the Family Law Act 1996 are realised in practice. Legal advice has indicated that it is not possible for the Government to implement section 9(3) and (4) independently because its provisions are procedurally linked with the other provisions of Part II. This Bill is therefore the vehicle by which those sections can be implemented without the rest of part II and, sensibly, it takes the opportunity to repeal those sections in the Family Law Act.
	Some hon. Members have expressed concern that the Bill seeks to legislate in what are essentially matters of religious doctrine and custom. I reassure them that the Government understand those concerns and would not support a Bill that purported to interfere in the interpretation of religious faith. We are satisfied that the Bill does not seek to involve the civil courts in questions of religious law. It only enables the court, when dealing with an application for a civil divorce, to withhold the decree absolute until the parties have taken the necessary steps to acquire a religious divorce from a Jewish religious court.
	As I said during the debate on the amendments, the Bill contains provisions for the Lord Chancellor to extend its provisions to other religious groups, should they so wish. I reiterate that there is no intention of foisting provisions on other faith groups. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised the issue of other religious groups, so let me point out that the Bill will apply only in cases where a religious group or sect provides for some form of religious divorce. Only in those instances would there be any question of using the order-making power. It would not be a matter of providing a religious divorce in terms of any religion; the critical question that the Lord Chancellor would also have to consider is whether withholding a religious divorce would have serious consequences for any of the parties. That would have to be taken into account when considering divorce for any other religious groups.
	I strongly believe that the Bill will have a positive impact on the lives of Jewish women threatened with being trapped in a limping marriage. The Bill will be able to help those women at no extra cost to the public purse. It enjoys wide support across the Jewish community and has been endorsed by leading members of that community.
	I know that some right hon. and hon. Members are, quite properly, concerned to ensure that the private Member's route is not used for the promotion of inappropriate legislation. I hope that anyone who shares those legitimate concerns is reassured that my hon. Friend's Bill is an example of the appropriate use of the private Member's route. It is a tightly drafted Bill designed to provide a remedy for a very specific problem. The number of chained women may well be small, but as the Bill offers an effective and appropriately framed remedy, I hope that the House agrees that we should take the opportunity to improve their lot and that of their children.
	I hope that the House also agrees that this is a worthwhile Bill. It would have been unlikely to find a place in the Government's programme due to demands on parliamentary time and could only have made progress thanks to the work of my hon. Friend. The Government support the Bill and I am happy to commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Copyright, Etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	Order for Third Reading Read.

Vincent Cable: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is a great privilege to introduce the Third Reading of the Bill. I shall be brief for two reasons. First, when the Bill passed through the House, there was no fundamental criticism of it and it did not attract amendments in Committee, so there is not a great deal to respond to. Secondly, I was up in the early hours of this morning not merely reminding myself of my own complicated legislation but trying to get to grips with pension annuities and Jewish divorce law, so my stamina for a long speech has been correspondingly reduced.
	I take this opportunity to express appreciation to the various people who have helped the Bill to proceed thus far. I thank the Minister and her staff, who have been very supportive, and Government Back Benchers, especially the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who did much of the pioneering work on the Bill, building up acceptance for its necessity. I also thank Conservative Front and Back Benchers, who have been supportive and helpful during the Bill's passage.
	I wish briefly to rehearse the reasons why the legislation is important. The essence of the problem is the importance that intellectual property now has in our economy, which is increasingly knowledge based rather than based on mass production processes. We all have thousands of constituents whose jobs depend on the success of knowledge-based industries—not just the IT industry, although that is the most important, but the entertainment industry and manufacturing industries, which depend on copyright ideas for their profitability and success. Thus theft of intellectual property and copyright—pirating—damages that new economy and we must be concerned about the economic consequences.
	As discussions on the Bill have highlighted, this is an area where the interests of producers and consumers coincide. Consumers have often been exploited by copyright pirates and goods have been adulterated, sometimes in a dangerous way. The Bill would not only protect intellectual property for producers but is a consumer protection measure.
	The Bill coincides with the interests of law and order because there is growing evidence from the criminal intelligence service and elsewhere that large-scale, organised crime has penetrated this area on a substantial scale, exploiting anomalies in the current legislation. It is important to get past the idea that this is a victimless crime—it clearly is not—and the province of the lovable old rogues, the Del Boy characters, who sell things off the back of a lorry. It is a nasty, organised crime carried out by people associated with the drug industry, for example, who use copyright theft as a way of recycling their funds, and it is important to have appropriate criminal penalties.
	The only other points that I need to make are specific and relate to interventions made on Second Reading and in Committee. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), asked about the relationship between the penalties for copyright theft, which is what the Bill is concerned with, and for comparable crimes such as those involving trade marks and fraud. The whole purpose of the Bill is to remove anomalies between those different aspects of the law. For entirely anomalous reasons, rather than by design, trade mark law is more punitive, with 10-year maximum sentences. Similarly, criminal fraud attracts the same level of sentence, but copyright theft has a much lower sentencing level with a maximum tariff of two years. There is evidence of criminals exploiting that anomaly, and the Bill seeks to close it.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) sought to be assured that the Bill would not lead to a proliferation of new criminal offences and sentences, and I was able to reassure him that it would not. There is already a sentence for the crime of copyright theft. The Bill is concerned with aligning it with other comparable offences. It does not create new offences or sentences.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) referred to the "Chanel" plant in his constituency and asked whether the Bill covered trade marks as well as copyright. Indeed, by its title it does. The provisions of the trademark law in relation to sentencing have been imported into the Bill to cover copyright; similarly, the copyright provisions on search warrants, for example, have been imported into the Bill to cover trade marks. The Bill reconciles different aspects of the law and makes them more consistent. It protects trade marks as well as copyright.
	Finally, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) drew attention to European copyright legislation. I understand that later this year the Government will introduce measures reflecting the copyright directive. I have been assured that there is no incompatibility between the different legislative routes. The EU copyright directive is primarily concerned with the information technology industry and the Bill relates primarily to large-scale reproduction through pirating. The two measures are fully consistent and complementary.
	With those few words I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped its passage through the House.

Philip Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who was previously involved in this great enterprise, and all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been involved in the passage of the Bill. It is a real achievement in improving the protection of intellectual property rights in the United Kingdom.
	I do not want to sound churlish, but the only slight cloud hanging over the Bill is that it looks as though it should have been a Government Bill. It was clearly necessary to put right a deficiency in the body of law dealing with these matters. That said, the industries that depend on intellectual property and all hon. Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham and everyone else involved with the Bill, especially as it is unusually complex and lengthy for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Gentleman deserves great credit for having piloted it through the House and mastered its complexities even if that occasionally involved getting up in the early hours of the morning.
	The hon. Gentleman used a phrase that I had already jotted down: he said that intellectual property theft has too often been seen as a victimless crime. Which of us could honestly say that we have never photocopied a copyright map or recorded a copyright piece of music? However, over the past few years organised crime has moved into this area. Copyright theft is having a greater and more serious impact on our economy and is increasing all the time as our economy becomes more knowledge based and dependent on intellectual property and the rights that attach to it.
	The development of new communications technologies, and certainly the realisation of their full potential, is critically dependent on effectively protecting the intellectual property in the content that they deliver. That is often achieved by technical means such as decoders. The Bill addresses the use of decoders as a contribution to protecting the content of the new converged communications systems. Protection will be enhanced through strengthening and simplifying enforcement procedures and that is the purpose of the Bill.
	By focusing on this issue, Parliament is sending a clear message both to the industries that depend on intellectual property protection—those industries make a substantial contribution to the UK economy—and to those who would seek to abuse intellectual property rights. Theft of intellectual property is a serious issue: as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, it is both an economic issue and a consumer protection issue.
	The Bill will help to ensure that those who seek unlawfully to benefit financially from the work, talent, creativity and investment of others are more readily, effectively and appropriately dealt with. It offers a significant measure of additional protection to our creative industries—a sector in which Britain is a world leader. It is essential that we protect this vital national asset base and this Bill does just that. The Opposition unreservedly welcome the Bill. Once again I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham on his handling of its passage through the House.

Melanie Johnson: The discussion today has been knowledgeable and informative. I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill for the first time. Hon. Members will know that unfortunately I could not be present for the debates on its earlier stages and I appreciate the consideration that has been given to the important matters contained within it.
	I am much heartened by the cross-party support extended to the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on having brought it this far. I join him in reminding the House of the earlier contributions by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) who was responsible for a similar private Member's Bill and who is present in the Chamber.
	As has been evident from our discussion, the subject matter covered by copyright, which is the main area affected by this Bill, is wide ranging and touches many aspects of our daily lives. It is hard to think of many of life's pleasures and challenges that do not have some aspect of copyright bound up with them.
	How we spend our leisure time is important to all of us. Art, books, music, theatre, newspapers, magazines, computer games, photography, television and films all involve copyright, although it does not normally include getting up in the early hours of the morning. The United Kingdom is active in all those areas, often as a world leader. As the hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friend have said this morning, we have much in which to take pride. How much poorer our lives would be, how much greyer, less vibrant, without these areas of creativity.
	What starts in the mind of an individual—a single moment of creative spark—is fanned both by imagination and by sheer hard work. The first moments when a new creation is set before the world can be like lighting a candle: it is all too easy to snuff it out. If that flame is protected—shielded by the law of copyright—miracles can happen. Imaginations can ignite and set the world on fire with a shared creative vision. Sparks in other minds flicker into life and the process continues. Copyright is the method by which creativity is rewarded and encouraged.
	Copyright is not just concerned with individual creative genius. What may have started with a single creative thought is a matter of business, both big and small. Deals are done and contracts signed. Money changes hands. Making a living is important to all of us, whether we are a creator or an entrepreneur. We all like a return on our investment, after all, so whether we are talking about the original creator of the work or the organisation that may have put millions into the funding to make it all possible, there is a lot at stake.
	However, it is all too easy for the unscrupulous to make a copy. To make many, many copies is, indeed, often very simple with such valuable property, and technology just keeps making it easier. We are all, I am sure, well aware of the ease with which perfect copies of copyright material can be made, and the opportunities provided by the internet for transmitting those copies all over the world.
	I do not intend to dwell on copyright issues in the information society today. Hon. Members will know that last year a European directive on copyright and related rights in the information society was adopted, and we are now, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, in the process of implementing that in the United Kingdom. Although our copyright law already provides a high level of protection in the online environment, the regulations that we will introduce in due course to implement the directive will make further improvements in protection aimed specifically at that environment.
	The Bill will tighten the provisions that apply when people are involved in making for sale and dealing in physical copies of copyright material in the knowledge that they do not have a licence from the copyright owners. In the main, this will involve illegal copies on compact discs or digital video discs or videos, and the copyright material will often be software: computer games and business software, music and films. Offences already exist that apply to such illegal activity, and they are not changed by the Bill, which is simply directed at the consequences for offenders.
	It is important to remember that, with the making of counterfeit and fake copies, there is no recompense for the copyright owner. Nothing is given back to those who made it all possible. There is no reward for the creator of the copyright material and nothing for the financial backer. If future creativity is to be encouraged, we must make it possible to deal appropriately with people who knowingly take part in the illegal behaviour that is caught by the offences in copyright law.
	The enforcement agencies that try to stop counterfeiting and piracy have often turned to trade mark law in preference to copyright law in taking action in this area. In many instances, after all, trade marks have been infringed along with the copyright, but to consider only the trade mark infringement has somehow made copyright infringement appear a lesser offence when it is not. In many instances, the copyright infringement can lead to just as much damage to right holders as the trade mark infringement, and in both cases consumers and society in general are also victims. The theft—for it is theft—can be a serious crime, whether it be of copyright alone, copyright and trade marks, or just trade marks.
	Until now, copyright theft has been considered the lesser theft, attracting lower maximum penalties, even though it can cause equal harm. The Bill is designed once and for all to give copyright theft equivalent standing to that of trade mark theft by copying into copyright law the better provisions on maximum penalties and forfeiture of infringing goods that already exist in trade mark law.
	Copyright law is not in all ways less effective than trade mark law, however. The provisions in copyright law on police search warrants are useful, and the Bill seeks to extend them more widely, including into the trade mark area. Rights in trade marks can be just as valuable as copyright. They allow a reputation that may have been built up over many years to be protected. Trade marks are used to give consumers reassurance that the products that they buy under a particular brand name will have the usual quality that they expect from a particular manufacturer.
	Illegal use of trade marks on poor or shoddy, or even malfunctioning or dangerous, goods undermines the trust that consumers have when they see that trade mark. That can have extremely serious consequences for the reputation that has been so carefully nurtured and developed over many years, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said.
	The Bill is a package of harmonising or rationalising measures that copy the best provisions that already exist in one area into the others, so that both copyright and trade mark crime can be dealt with more efficiently, effectively and fairly. Copyright and trade mark rights are, of course, both forms of intellectual property. The Bill also covers other areas of intellectual property related to copyright, such as the rights granted to performers over recordings of their performances.
	By harmonising the law in the areas that I have mentioned, the Bill makes it clear that copyright offences are not less than trade mark offences, and vice versa. Theft is theft. If people steal the intellectual property of others, be it by trade mark or copyright infringement, or in any of the areas related to copyright, they must bear in mind the consequences.
	Before considering the detail of the Bill, I would like to return to the subject of harm and who is affected by intellectual property or IP crime. I stressed those issues last December when I launched the Crimestoppers national anti-counterfeiting campaign in London. That event was the culmination of collaboration between many interests, including right holders, enforcement agencies, and of course the charity known as the Crimestoppers Trust. It was just the start of a long-term campaign to raise people's awareness of the serious consequences of counterfeiting.
	All of us here today are well aware that IP crime threatens not only our creative and innovative industries but consumers, jobs and society in general, but public understanding of the issues is very low. Raising awareness will need to be undertaken over a long and protracted time scale, but acting under the well-respected and well-known Crimestoppers logo does, I believe, provide a valuable way forward.
	I said at the London launch on 3 December that it was just the start of the campaign. I was immensely pleased by the high level of media interest in that launch event, but the messages will need repeating again and again. Indeed, the first regional event to reinforce that campaign has now taken place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was present at an event in Leicester in February that highlighted in particular the damage caused by counterfeiting to the legitimate clothing industry in that area, while also reinforcing the message that this is indeed a national and international problem, affecting many diverse areas. We hope to be able to support more events in the future, and that the media will continue to help us highlight the messages that we need to get across.
	Of course, linking up with Crimestoppers has a dual purpose. As well as raising public awareness, the campaign is aimed at encouraging people to report the crime to the free, confidential Crimestoppers phone number. Many people will know where there are instances of IP crime. As both hon. Gentlemen said, many people are tempted to buy fake goods because they may appear to be bargains, but people may also know who is behind this illegal activity. Wherever people come across this crime, we hope that they will give information to the enforcement agencies or right holders or, if they prefer, to the Crimestoppers number, from where it will be passed on to the right people to deal with it.
	We know that public perceptions of counterfeiting often derive from characters such as Del Boy, or a lovable rogue selling cheap fakes from a battered suitcase. Many people know that selling fakes is illegal and that the manufacturers of the genuine goods may be losing out, but the public often have more sympathy for the guy selling the fakes in the rain than for the business interests that may be damaged. In order to understand why working with Crimestoppers in this area is so important, we need to understand why those public perceptions are wrong and why we need to change them through the Bill.
	Counterfeiting or IP crime involves stealing. It is the theft of property, intellectual property, and is no less serious than the theft of physical property. Indeed, it may even be more serious. By stealing just one brand name, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, or just one piece of copyright material such as a computer game, the criminal can make illegally many thousands or even millions of goods incorporating that material. The counterfeiter has spent no money creating and developing new products. The counterfeiter has not invested in building up a reputation for good-quality goods, backed up by a reliable after-sales service. The counterfeiter fraudulently copies IP, and sometimes even has the cheek to charge the same price as that of the genuine article.
	However, few fakes match the quality of the authentic goods, and we know that consumers can sometimes become extremely disappointed as a result. The lovable rogue will not be around to give a refund; fakes do not come with guarantees or an after-sales service.
	Counterfeit and pirate goods that do not work properly or that come apart after a few uses at least lead to no more damage to the consumer beyond a hole in their purse. There are fakes, though, that can pose serious hazards to consumers. All too often they can be goods that are attractive to children. The counterfeiters are quick to profit, paying no regard to safety standards, so counterfeit toys with parts that come off too easily, leaving sharp ends, and children's nightwear that has the latest attractive logos but is highly flammable, have been found. There are also examples of damaging goods among products for which copyright is more important, such as computer software containing viruses that damage the computer. Anything else that the counterfeiters can copy will be available for those who want to take the risk.
	Linking Crimestoppers and counterfeiting involves much more than concerns about consumer safety, though. As the Bill recognises, counterfeiting is a crime, and evidence is growing that organised crime groups are behind many of the characters at markets, car boot sales and on street corners who are selling fakes. Sometimes the web of criminal activity stretches over many countries. At other times, organised crime groups based only in the United Kingdom are involved.
	The links between IP theft and other serious crimes are becoming more transparent. As the director of the Crimestoppers Trust said at the London launch of the anti-counterfeiting campaign, the guy selling the fakes may be only two handshakes away from someone like bin Laden. That is not just a fairytale idea; we have evidence that it may be close to the truth.
	Last year's threat assessment by the National Criminal Intelligence Service highlighted two links with serious organised crime—with drug trafficking and immigration crime. I shall cite some quotations from that threat assessment:
	"Counterfeiting is enormously profitable, and organised criminals are heavily involved in the production, the buying and importing and the distribution of all types of counterfeited products . . . The profits from IP theft can help organised crime groups to become more established and to fund other various criminal activities."
	NCIS also said:
	"Over two thirds of the organised crime groups reported to be involved in intellectual property theft were seen also to be involved in drug trafficking. Drug and intellectual property theft are very different areas of crime, except that both involve smuggling and selling, and the levels of risk attached are also very different. The links are not fully understood, but there are large profits to be made from counterfeit goods, and this may be the simple explanation."
	I am sure that those quotations leave hon. Members in no doubt that what we are talking about, and what the Bill is about, is a serious area of crime.
	Counterfeiting also leads to job losses and to the creation of fewer jobs—not just jobs in big business and in other countries, but those on the high street and in the UK. Big retailers may be able to recoup some of their losses owing to counterfeiting, probably by adding something to the cost of the genuine articles, but if counterfeiters move in with their goods, small high street shops may close down, putting local people out of a job. Intellectual property crime is therefore a problem in all our constituencies.
	The consequences of IP crime are therefore far-reaching, and the publicity for the Crimestoppers campaign highlights some of those messages. We do not expect public perceptions to change overnight. We know from experience that raising public awareness will be a long and slow haul. However, because of the serious impact of IP theft, we know that it is important that the effort is made and that making it under the well-respected Crimestoppers logo is an excellent way forward.
	Crimestoppers of course plays a role in gathering intelligence to fight crime generally. Last year, the Home Office published an independent evaluation of the work of the trust, which recognises the valuable contribution to crime reduction that the charity makes. The anonymous freephone number received more than 500,000 calls in 2000, and 17 per cent. of the calls on which action was taken resulted in an arrest, a charge or a caution. I fully agree with the recent comment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety that
	"Crimestoppers is a unique and effective route to gathering vital intelligence for the police and other law enforcement agencies."
	I am particularly pleased that the launch of the Crimestoppers anti-counterfeiting campaign and the rolling programme of events around the country over the coming months have been made possible by the sponsorship of some industries that are affected by IP theft. We should encourage other industries to support the campaign as it develops. Crimestoppers has a history of voluntary and business interests working in partnership. The anti-counterfeiting campaign is a joint venture fitting that pattern entirely appropriately.

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the Government are supporting the Bill? She has now been speaking for more than 20 minutes about a measure that commands complete support among Members of all parties and I am beginning to wonder whether she is trying to talk it out.

Melanie Johnson: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am certainly not trying to talk the Bill out. Indeed, I have been speaking entirely in support of it. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully from the Opposition Front Bench, he would be fully aware that everything that I have said warmly supports the Bill, which also has the Government's full support.
	I mentioned that the Crimestoppers' campaign is also supported by some law enforcement agencies. Their work is crucial to the fight against IP crime. The Bill will, I hope, give them more consistent and transparent tools to help their work. I also commend the excellent work of the law enforcement agencies, which already play an active role in fighting counterfeiting crime. This Bill will make their work even more valuable.
	We should not lose sight of other ways of fighting IP crime. As well as bringing about rationalisation of the criminal remedies, the greater transparency of the consequences of IP crime that the Bill will deliver will—I hope—have a deterrent effect.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to page 544 of Erskine May, which tells us that the scope of Third Reading debates is not as wide as that on Second Reading, and that debate should be confined to the specific contents of the Bill? It seems odd that the Minister has informed us that the Bill has the support of the House, yet she seems to be taking, shall we say, a fairly wide approach to it, and is making a speech that would be more appropriate on Second Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given the House a helpful reminder, of which I hope the Minister has taken note.

Melanie Johnson: Of course, I certainly take note of anything you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been making the point, which I hope the hon. Gentleman well understands, that the Bill is very important. It will have many consequences for the economy, consumers and business. There is much need to highlight the significance of the issue, the Bill's importance to it and the effectiveness of fighting such crime. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
	As I was saying, I hope that as a result of the Bill more people will be persuaded that the level of risk, which NCIS identified as very different from that for some other organised crimes, is more significant. I hope, too, that our efforts to raise public awareness may even persuade the public not to buy fakes. Reducing the market for counterfeit goods is one of the most effective crime reduction strategies.
	I should like briefly to consider the detail of the Bill. We have naturally taken advice on the text and I can therefore confirm to the hon. Member for Twickenham that clause 1 raises the maximum penalties for copyright and related offences. The Bill does not change the offences, for which the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides. The maximum penalties are increased to those that currently exist for trade mark offences concerning product counterfeiting.
	I have already said that there is no justification for the different maximum penalties that currently exist. Copyright piracy—the wilful theft of copyright material—can be just as serious as trade mark counterfeiting, which is the wilful theft of a brand name. Harmonising the maximum penalty at an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years in prison is therefore right.
	I understand that some of the most serious cases of copyright crime, in which criminals have been caught making and distributing large numbers of illegal compact discs or videos, have been tackled by prosecuting the offenders for conspiracy to defraud rather than copyright offences. That is because the existing maximum penalty in copyright law, which allows only up to two years in prison, was deemed inadequate for the seriousness of the offending behaviour. A prison sentence of 10 years is possible when a person is convicted for conspiracy to defraud. The Bill will therefore introduce greater transparency into the consequences of copyright theft, which should lead to a greater deterrent effect.
	We have also considered clause 2 carefully and believe that it provides some useful rationalisation of existing search warrant provisions for the police. Specific search warrant provisions already apply to some of the copyright offences concerning making for sale or hire and dealing in infringing copies. However, we agree that the limitation to only some of the offences is unhelpful. It should be possible for the police to seek a search warrant when there are reasonable grounds for believing that any of the making for sale or hire or dealing offences has been or is about to be committed.
	A corresponding amendment of the existing search warrant provision that relates to illicit recordings of performances is also useful. Moreover, it does not make sense to have no specific search warrant provisions for the criminal offences that relate to unauthorised decoders, which are related to copyright. We believe that the clause makes appropriate new provision for that, too.
	I know that clause 3 appears complex, but hon. Members will understand that its purpose is to insert two new sections into copyright law that correspond to existing provision in trade mark law. During an investigation into copyright crime, it is not uncommon for the police or others to seize many illegal CDs, videos and so on as evidence. Trade marks law provides forfeiture provisions for goods seized during investigation of the counterfeiting offences that apply both when there has been a prosecution and when that has not been possible. I believe that the clause inserts corresponding provision into copyright law.
	I understand that the trade mark provisions enacted in the Trade Marks Act 1994 were modelled on provisions for goods contravening a safety provision in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Clauses 4 and 5 provide for forfeiture measures that are comparable to those provided by clause 3.

Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Third Reading speech to go through a Bill clause by clause? The measure has already been examined in detail in Committee and on Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is in order in dealing with the contents of the Bill, which is the prime purpose of a Third Reading debate. The Minister may have enlarged on that task earlier, but she is currently talking about the contents of the Bill, with, I hope, some awareness of the time that she has already taken.

Melanie Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said earlier, clauses 4 and 5 provide for forfeiture measures that are comparable to those that clause 3 provides, but for illicit recordings of performances and unauthorised decoders for illegal access to conditional access transmissions such as satellite television. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) mentioned that in his contribution.
	Although the police are able in some circumstances to obtain search warrants to investigate the trade mark counterfeiting offences using provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, there is no specific provision in trade mark law equivalent to that in copyright law. I believe that clause 6 creates useful harmonisation on that by inserting a specific search warrant provision into trade mark law modelled on that in copyright law as amended by clause 2.
	Let me deal finally with clause 7. Intellectual property is a reserved matter so it is right that this Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand that the devolved Administrations are aware of the Bill and are content to see it enacted. We have confirmed with the Council of Ministers in the Isle of Man that it is content for clause 6 to extend to that territory in the same way that trade mark law, which is amended by clause 6, currently so extends.
	I hope that my comments today have given us a chance to review the way in which the Bill is designed to bring some rationalisation and transparency to the provisions on intellectual property crime. As I explained at the beginning, copyright owners are the major beneficiaries of the measures, and copyright is the form of intellectual property that should be familiar to us all, given its impact on and importance to the many sectors that bring us products to enrich our lives.
	I should therefore like to confirm again that the Bill has the wholehearted support of the Government and warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham and the Bill's sponsors for giving us the opportunity to provide worthwhile improvements in a valuable aspect of law.
	Question put and agreed to
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed

Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Amendment of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 6, leave out—
	'or sums for investment in a Retirement Failsafe Fund'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
	'or a Retirement Failsafe Fund'.
	No. 2, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
	'(g) the payment to a member of income from a Retirement Failsafe Fund satisfying the conditions of section 637C.'.
	No. 3, in page 2, line 23, leave out "section is" and insert "sections are".
	No. 4, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
	'637C Retirement Failsafe Fund
	(1) There shall be a vehicle for savings for retirement known as a Retirement Failsafe Fund.
	(2) A member may transfer funds into a Retirement Failsafe Fund if he elects not to purchase an annuity.
	(3) Regulations may make provision relating to Retirement Failsafe Funds, and in particular in connection with—
	(a) the sums to be invested in the fund;
	(b) withdrawals from the fund;
	(c) the age at which a pension is payable;
	(d) preventing the assignment or surrender of withdrawals from the fund.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (3) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Ruth Kelly: The amendment was intended to correct a defect in the Bill as it left Committee. In Committee, the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) tabled an amendment on behalf of the Christian Brethren to allow a personal pension scheme to invest in a retirement failsafe fund. The Committee accepted that amendment but rejected another, which provided for the specification of a retirement failsafe fund and the conditions it would have to meet. Consequently, the Bill is defective. The amendment therefore corrects the defect by removing the reference to a retirement failsafe fund in the clause. It is worth taking some time to consider the substance of the group of amendments.
	The amendments are designed to ensure a minimum retirement income without the necessity of buying an annuity. They are a genuine attempt to meet the needs of the Christian Brethren, whose beliefs will not let them participate in insurance products.
	As we know, the first definition of a retirement failsafe fund put forward by the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Tiverton and Honiton did not survive the Committee stage. I have sympathy with the aims behind the amendments. I do not believe that they are designed, like the Bill, to extract money other than as retirement income, or to preserve it for heirs after the death of the scheme member. They are intended to provide an alternative means of securing a retirement income that does not involve buying an annuity. The intention is that the retirement failsafe fund will generate an income equivalent to the minimum retirement income, which the Bill defines elsewhere. However, the amendments are silent on the conditions that should apply.
	It is not clear, for example, whether money can be placed in the retirement failsafe fund at any time after joining the pension scheme or only when benefits first come to be drawn. Instead, the amendments provided that all the details of exactly what a retirement failsafe fund is and how it would operate are left to regulations, rather than spelled out in the Bill.

Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that such an amendment should have been tabled, given the number of times that we have heard the reluctance of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to accept anything that would lead to a Henry VIII clause, leaving the Government free to make their own regulations on a Bill, particularly a finance Bill? I have heard the hon. Gentleman wax lyrical on numerous occasions about the difficulties that that would pose. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the Opposition should not proceed in this way on this occasion?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I sympathise with the aim behind the amendment, which is to meet a genuine concern of the Christian Brethren. However, I do not and cannot sympathise with the way in which that concern would be met, or with the degree of power, to which my hon. Friend rightly refers, that the amendment would grant the Treasury through regulations.

Angela Browning: Perhaps it would have helped the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and his new-found interest in the Bill if he had been present in Committee when it was made clear, in presenting the amendments on behalf of the Christian Brethren, that they have already been engaged in no fewer than four years' negotiations with the Inland Revenue on the matter. Given the implied agreement in the Minister's opening remarks that she is seeking to resolve the problem, I am surprised to hear such a mealy-mouthed intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have said that I sympathise with the aims of the amendment, but I do not think that the Bill can meet them in a successful fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) rightly draws attention to some of the Bill's deficiencies.

Barry Gardiner: On a point of explanation, I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that I said on Second Reading—a debate for which she obviously was not here—that I had followed the subject of annuities very closely in the House over the past four or five years, that I am a member of the relevant all-party group and that I have been extremely active in these matters. If the hon. Lady had done her homework a little better, she would not be quite so flushed in the cheeks at the moment.

Ruth Kelly: I know the interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters; I have regular discussions with him on these and other financial matters, in which he also takes a great interest.

Edward Leigh: Can we please get back to this very important issue of conscience? The Minister is herself a lady of religious conviction. Hers may not be the same religious conviction as that of the Christian Brethren, but they have an honest belief, and the Government must try and find a way forward. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) tabled the amendment in the way he did because if it had been prescriptive, the Government would have argued that it was defective and took the wrong approach. My hon. Friend cannot win. Will the Minister explain how she will meet the genuine beliefs of this small but important minority? Minorities are important, even if they are small.

Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point. These are valid concerns: I have taken a personal interest in them and would like the Inland Revenue to be able to meet them in a way that is compatible with the Government's overall aims. While I intend to address some of the technical deficiencies associated with this manner of meeting the concerns alluded to, I hope that, through the negotiations that I know are ongoing, we will find a different way of meeting those concerns.
	As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Government recently published a consultation document on annuity reform on which the Christian Brethren have made representations to the Inland Revenue and the Treasury. I shall be looking at those representations extremely closely, and although this dialogue has been going on for a long time, perhaps in the future we will manage to find a way through it. However, we must bear it in mind that it is not compulsory for people to save in a pension fund. There are other ways of saving, so people have a choice about the way in which they save for their retirement. It is not incumbent on individuals who disagree with our approach to buy an annuity product. They have other methods at their disposal and other ways of saving for their retirement.

Vincent Cable: I should like clarification of the Government's intention. Is the Minister saying that they are now committed to meeting the concerns of this group and will seek to meet them through regulatory change or negotiations with the Inland Revenue even if primary legislation is not forthcoming? Is that a Government commitment?

Ruth Kelly: It is a commitment to try and understand its concerns and see whether there are ways in which we can meet them. I am afraid that I cannot today give a commitment that we will be able to meet them. Although there is a compulsion to buy an annuity if one saves through a pension fund, there are of course other ways of saving for old age, and I shall bear that in mind when considering these issues.
	I want to get back to the way in which the amendment has been tabled and the technical difficulties that the Opposition's proposals present. The essential problem remains—that of securing an income for the whole of a person's retirement, no matter how long that might be. The version of the retirement failsafe fund in Committee attempted to cover the detail in the Bill itself. Presumably, the general thrust that Members who tabled the amendments would like to see in regulations remains much the same.
	The proposals made in Committee had many drawbacks and would not have provided the necessary guarantees. For example, they attempted to deal with the possibility of the fund running out over time by requiring the size of the retirement failsafe fund to be 150 per cent. of the fund size needed to generate an annual minimum retirement income, presumably by reference to what could be purchased on the annuity market. The minimum retirement income is to be whatever amount was set by the Chancellor for the year in question. It would have to increase each year by reference to increases in the retail prices index, capped at 5 per cent. How much of the fund would be necessary to achieve that were an annuity to be purchased on day one would depend on the age of the scheme member at that time. Even if there were enough money in the pension scheme to cover the 150 per cent. condition at the outset—and most funds would be well below the necessary fund size of around £83,000—there would be no guarantee that the failsafe fund would be able to generate the minimum retirement income year after year. A downturn in the investment fund could easily lead to a depletion of the fund size.
	I understand the concerns of the Christian Brethren, but the fact remains that an annuity is the only means of guaranteeing a secure income for the whole of a person's life. A failsafe fund cannot do that. Apart from the possibility of a downturn in the investment market causing funds to deplete rapidly, the pension scheme member would be permanently exposed to mortality drag. That concept may seem arcane to the outside world, but we had discussions in Committee about the importance of mortality drag, and it remains critical to the debate. I think that it would be helpful if I explained the phenomenon in broad terms because of the importance that I attach to it.
	Some people believe that it is better for a pensioner to wait to buy an annuity because annuity rates are higher for older people. It is certainly true that annuity rates are higher for older people, but that fact is only part of the story. Annuity providers set their rates by judging the life expectancy of their customers. The judgment determines how much capital they can afford to return each year to people who buy annuities, along with interest. Because older people are more likely to die, this mortality cross-subsidy allows the provider to give a bigger capital boost to its older annuity customers. That is why annuity rates rise with age.
	If someone decides to start taking benefits from their pension savings, delays buying an annuity and draws income from their fund, part of their fund remains invested. After a period they could use the residual fund, with any investment growth, to buy an annuity at the rate for their age then. However, the residual fund needs a strong growth rate if it is to allow pensioners to buy the same level of annuity income as they could have achieved if they had bought an annuity when they first started drawing benefits from the fund. There are two reasons for this: first, the residual fund does not benefit from mortality cross-subsidy until it is used to buy an annuity. The delay means that older people get less benefit from the early deaths of people born at the same time, because their capital was never pooled with them.
	Secondly, life expectancy increases with age. For example, a man of 65 might on average expect to reach age 82, but if he survives to age 75, he can expect to reach age 85. This may at first seem odd. It happens because people who die younger have fallen out of the picture when the life expectancy for people at any given age is calculated. So the older people are when they buy an annuity, the greater the age the annuity provider must expect them to achieve, and the longer the annuity has to last. Taken together, those two effects mean that the residual fund has to make sustained and reliable returns well above those of fixed interest securities such as gilts in order to keep pace with the income that an annuity would have provided.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Have she or her officials done any research into the intended effect of the proposals? If they encouraged more and more people to take annuities later in life, how would the annuities market be affected? Might not rates automatically be depressed by the very phenomenon that the proposals seek to achieve?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his very interesting remarks. Clearly, substantial changes of the sort that hon. Members opposite propose would have a very significant impact on the annuity market in terms of rates, availability and types, and so forth. I intend to return to some of those issues when we discuss other amendments, and especially in relation to the effect of the proposal of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) to ask people to buy a compulsory annuity at 65. Presumably, that applies to people who describe themselves as non-Christian Brethren, although that is not clearly set out in the Bill. The proposal would also have a substantial impact on the gilt market—an issue to which I shall return, along with other matters; especially the affordability of the proposals.
	Mortality drag is one of the factors that must be taken into account when income withdrawal or draw-down, as it is also known, is considered under the existing rules. However, the period of draw-down is limited to attaining the age of 75—after which the increased investment returns begin to look unsustainable. In that context, the proposal is that an annuity would never be purchased, possibly with dire consequences for the pension scheme member as they get older. I hope that I have at least shown that there is no quick and easy alternative to annuity purchase that would meet the Government's requirement that tax-relieved pension fund moneys should provide a secure income that is guaranteed to last for the whole of the pensioner's retirement, no matter how long they live.
	I should also like to remind the House of some of the other elements of the retirement failsafe fund that would have taken effect under proposals previously tabled by hon. Members. Anyone whose fund size was more than that needed to meet the 150 per cent. condition would have the freedom to withdraw as much as they liked from the remaining personal pension fund before they reach 80, when all the remaining funds would be merged. Then and for every year afterwards, the fund would be divided by the number of years remaining to age 100, and that amount would be paid out as income.
	There was nothing to stop the whole of the fund that remained after the failsafe fund has been set up from being withdrawn before age 80. Clearly, it would be the choice of many wealthy people to extract the maximum amount possible just before reaching 80 so that it was not subject to the rules that came into play at that age. The lack of any compulsion to annuitise and the provision of full access to the funds before age 80 would, like the Bill's main proposals, be an enormous encouragement to wealthy people to save much more of their income or transfer savings from elsewhere into tax-relieved pension funds.
	The Exchequer costs of the extra tax reliefs that would be claimed as a result are estimated to run into hundreds of millions of pounds a year. I shall not explain the matter further at this stage, but I propose to return to it later in the debate. The point is that the reliefs would be given other than for their intended pension purpose. The proposals would have enabled those with large funds built up with the benefit of very generous tax reliefs to set aside only a small proportion for the provision of retirement income and use the rest for any purpose they wished. That is not an acceptable use of tax relief. The proposals considered in Committee also left unaddressed the critical question of what would happen if the scheme member lived to 100. Even if the fund had not run out beforehand, it was designed to do so at that age.

David Curry: His life expectancy would be 130 by then.

Ruth Kelly: The right hon. Gentleman points out that if people reach the age of 100, they may have a significant further period to live.
	The hon. Members who tabled the amendments have argued in the past—they may do so again today—that it is precisely because of the need to address the difficulties that I have mentioned that they now propose that all that should be sorted out by regulations. I hope that I have made it clear that it is not that easy to solve some of these very difficult problems and that it cannot be done merely through regulation. I think that that shows that the proposals have not been thought through coherently.

Edward Leigh: I think that we can take it as read that, for the technical reasons that the Minister has outlined, she and her officials are opposed to the retirement failsafe fund. That is fair enough; she is entitled to her point of view. However, the House is entitled to get an explanation before she sits down. Given that she holds those views, how does she intend to address the conscientious objection that people have registered?

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I know are genuine; indeed, I share those concerns. It would be beneficial if we could think of some way of meeting the concerns of the Christian Brethren while maintaining our basic principles for the use of tax relief, as has been clearly set out in our consultation document. Of course, we are still considering the results of the consultation, which is not designed to fit in neatly to the timetable of the Bill. We will consider those results and we take the issues extremely seriously.
	Even if the principle behind the amendments were acceptable—I have pointed out that there are serious concerns even about the principle that they involve—they are still technically flawed. For example, amendment No. 1 still treats income invested in a retirement failsafe fund as benefit to be paid out of the personal pension scheme. However, there is no proposal to amend section 633 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, which defines the scope of benefits that a personal pension scheme can provide to include payments into such a fund. So the status of the retirement failsafe fund is again left unclear and uncertain. Regulations could not sort out that problem because they could not override section 633 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act.
	There is also still the unresolved conflict with the Bill's other clauses. For example, the Bill makes a minimum retirement income annuity compulsory at 65. Although amendment No. 4 states that a member
	"may transfer funds into a Retirement Failsafe Fund if he elects not to purchase an annuity",
	it is insufficient to disapply the Bill's mandatory annuity purchase requirement. Even if the member could transfer funds into a retirement failsafe fund, it is not clear what would happen if the proposed regulations had not been made at that time. The amendments make no provision as to time scales.
	I am afraid the amendments that we have are completely unworkable on technical grounds and could not be put right by regulations. As I said, the previous proposals did not resolve the difficulties and were costly. Now the aim of the hon. Members who tabled the amendments is for the Government to accept the failsafe fund in principle and to sort out the problems at a later date by way of regulations.
	I do not believe that this Bill is the right way to take the issues forward and to meet the Brethren's concerns. I believe that the better course is to examine the issues as part of our ongoing consultation exercise. The consultation document "Modernising Annuities", which was published on 5 February, is intended to stimulate discussion on annuity issues. I shall certainly commit myself to studying the response of the Christian Brethren very carefully. As I said in the House on 14 February, I shall be happy to go on exploring the issues with those involved if we cannot make an immediate response to their demands.
	I do not think that the Bill is the right way to take those particular concerns forward, so to say the least, I am not comfortable with the amendments that have been tabled by hon. Members opposite.

Howard Flight: The Minister presented the proceedings in Committee the wrong way round. A clear vote was cast by a cross-party majority in favour of the principle of the failsafe fund. The votes were not in favour of the specific detailed proposals. It is therefore logical that on Report we should follow that principle: the concept is accepted, but we all know that there are difficulties in working out precisely how the provisions would operate. Given that there have been four years of discussions with the Revenue, it is entirely logical to speak in support of our main amendment in the group. In essence, that amendment leaves the meeting of the objectives to be sorted out with the Revenue in regulations.
	The Minister's remarks were disingenuous, as the issue has been around for four years. The Brethren have been in detailed discussions with the Revenue to sort out an arrangement that can provide retirement income for them without their having to go against their religious principles by purchasing an annuity. The point at issue is that an annuity is an insurance policy, which, for the Brethren, represents gambling with death, and that is against their religious principles. It is simply not good enough for the Government to go on mumbling about commitments to go on talking for another four years to solve the problem: it is time that it was solved.

Andrew Dismore: I have some sympathy with the position of the Christian Brethren, but I find it difficult to understand what leads them to that conclusion. Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten me about the biblical authority on which it is based, so that I can appreciate the fundamental point to which they object?

Howard Flight: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was capable of a better contribution. I am not a member of the Plymouth Brethren. The point of principle is clear, and the exact biblical references are set out in their substantial literature.

Angela Browning: I am not a member of the Plymouth Brethren, but the reference is Romans 13.1.

Howard Flight: I thank my hon. Friend.
	As the Minister said, the proposals were not supported in Committee, and further discussions are required to work out what will satisfy all parties. The failsafe fund would have a very conservative investment approach, so, contrary to her comments, there would be no equity risk. Moreover, the amount that people put into it would have to be sufficient to avoid the possibility of their drawing too much of it prior to death, then becoming dependent on income support.
	The Minister cited as a basic principle a concept that is in fact untrue, as she has accepted on other occasions. A standard guaranteed annuity in no way provides certainty of retirement income. For example, if we face a period of very high inflation resulting from oil prices rocketing because of the tragic middle east situation, a guaranteed annuity could easily become of minimal worth. It is potentially a less secure way of providing for certainty of income in old age than a failsafe fund that can widen its investments. The principle that a guaranteed annuity provides certainty is inaccurate—it provides no certainty of real income, but merely a certainty of a nominal income.
	In essence, the amendments pursue the position reached by the Committee to its logical and sensible conclusion—to leave the Revenue to work out a legal framework for arrangements that meet the Brethren's religious conscience. It is more than time that the issue was settled. It is not good enough simply to go on saying, "We'll go on talking; we'd like to do something about it." That is disingenuous.
	There was a marked lack of conviction in the Minister's comments about annuities that are not directly relevant. We shall no doubt debate those in due course.

Angela Browning: Obviously, I support my hon. Friend, as I, too, put my name to this group of amendments.
	On several occasions the Minister referred to the group of amendments as having been tabled by "hon. Members opposite". She and other hon. Members should be aware that the amendments were also tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose knowledge and experience of pension matters probably exceeds that of any other Back Bencher on either side of the House. When the relevant amendments were voted on in Committee—where the Government clearly had a majority—only four Labour Members voted, so my amendments received a degree of cross-party support.

Ruth Kelly: I should make it clear that the members of a Committee on a private Member's Bill are chosen by the hon. Member who is promoting it, so of course the Government did not have a majority.

Angela Browning: When the vote was taken, the majority in favour of the amendments arose as a result of the abstention of Labour Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is younger that me, so he probably has a more finely-tuned memory.

David Curry: My life expectancy is, I believe, going up with every year that I continue to survive.
	To clarify the position, the promoter of a private Member's Bill is obliged to select a Committee membership that respects the balance of forces in the Chamber. When I selected my Bill Committee, I could not select all its Labour Members from those who participated on Second Reading, because not enough had done so, so I was obliged to trawl more widely. I even chose a Parliamentary Private Secretary, which was an example of unaccustomed generosity.

Angela Browning: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That proves my point.
	I want to press my case with the Minister. As the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said, in redrafting the Bill prior to Report my right hon. and hon. Friends and I said that we were willing to allow the Government to make some progress. The Government are consulting on the subject and I am aware of the Plymouth Brethren's most generous contribution to the Government's paper as an attempt to offer ways forward.
	I repeat a point that was made in Committee. The United Kingdom is not unique in this respect. The Brethren have a presence in other countries such as America and Australia, whose legislatures have had similar problems, especially in relation to revenue services, but they have found ways forward. Thanks to the last Conservative Government, the UK pioneered the way in private pensions. Given that other countries have found a way round the difficulty and enabled all parts of their communities, including minorities, to participate in providing for their retirement, it is extraordinary that the Government are unable to find a practical and pragmatic way forward to accommodate the needs of this minority in line with the checks and balances required by the Inland Revenue.
	The amendment is helpful as it would allow the matter to be decided later in the regulatory process. However, discussions have taken place and there are clear examples from abroad that the Government could call upon to ascertain how other countries have proceeded. It should not be beyond the wit of man to make some pretty urgent progress on such an important issue.
	I hope that the Government will start seeking opportunities to find solutions, rather than considering old arguments which suggest that nothing can be done. I hope also that the Minister will take in good faith the motivation underlying the amendments. The supporters of the amendments are trying to make progress. We are looking for more from the Minister than her assurance that there will be more talks. Clearly, there will need to be more talks, but we would like those talks to result in positive action.

Vincent Cable: I support the way in which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke to the amendment. We understand that the Government have serious problems with the Bill. There are many serious arguments that they can bring to bear. The Minister advanced many of the arguments adequately on Second Reading and in Committee. However, the way in which the Government have handled the issue is unworthy of them. I am referring to the history of the way in which they have dealt with the religious minority that we are considering, and not only to the amendments.
	It is not merely a matter of there being cross-party consensus. Those who are trying to achieve change are acting in an entirely disinterested way. A point not yet made today but which was made in Committee is that the Brethren do not vote. None of us has any self-interest in pursuing this line of action. We are acting to preserve the interests of a small minority that rightly or wrongly feels strongly about the issue before us.
	We are talking about conscientious objection. I have a rather colourful and varied spiritual CV. In an earlier part of my life I was a Quaker. Most of my fellow Quakers at that time had a conscientious objection to war. This country has long accepted that they should opt out of such obligations without national defence collapsing.
	The Inland Revenue seems unable to accept that a small minority can find a way out of the annuities regulations without the revenue base of the country collapsing. That shows a complete lack of imagination and flexibility. I thought that the Minister would say, "We see problems with the failsafe mechanism, but I accept that the process has taken far too long. I will work with the Inland Revenue to find an expeditious solution to the problem." That is what we want the hon. Lady to say.
	I do not accept the amendment in all its details, but I hope that the Minister will be a little more positive and constructive than she has been so far.

David Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her gallantry. It was slightly excessive gallantry, as I am older than her. I would not wish the House to be misled on that demographic phenomenon, especially as it affects my life expectancy. The advantage of being older than my hon. Friend is that I have an enhanced life expectancy. The exponential consequences are wonderfully biblical.
	There is no point in pretending that the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) are not at odds with the principle of the Bill. We might as well be clear about that. I have rested the Bill upon the continued obligation to buy an annuity to satisfy the Government's need that people should remain out of welfare and that provision made with the benefit of tax concessions should be devoted to the purposes for which the concession was made in the first instance. In that sense, what is being proposed clearly runs counter to one of the underlying principles in the Bill. I sought to present a Bill that does not confront the Government's preoccupations, but which will work with the grain of them.
	I recognise the sense of frustration that after such a long time there is still not an outcome. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) tabled the amendments without regarding them as being impeccable in every way. I have yet to encounter a private Member's Bill that did not contain technical flaws; that is the nature of the beast. However, at some stage we must precipitate a more active response from the Government. I am sure that the purpose of the amendments is to bring about such a response.
	The Minister accepts that there is a genuine attempt to address a problem. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, the Christian Brethren are a part of his electorate, but they are not part of his electors. We are all in that situation. The Minister said that she understands the situation and that she would like to find a way through it. We accept that good will has been expressed on both sides of the House. There is not a tricky mechanism in the Bill to try to achieve a certain purpose. The Bill is specific in its functions. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said to the Government, "Find a way of doing this."
	We have all sought some landing lights from the Government. The Minister's speech was aspirational. What she aspired to was welcome. We all want to find an answer. If she were able to give us something a little more concrete in terms of timetabling and the means by which engagement will take place—some sort of structure by which she hopes to find a way through—I am sure that we would all be greatly reassured. The purpose of the amendments is not to drive a coach and horses through the Bill, but to address a problem that has dragged on for a very long time. In a mature democracy such as ours, it should be possible to find a solution.

Edward Leigh: There is very little new to say. I was one of the people who put my name to the amendments. I have had numerous discussions with the Plymouth Brethren, who have come to see me in my surgery on many issues. They are difficult people to deal with because they have an absolutely rigid conscientious belief in what the Bible says and base their whole life on it.
	By definition, no one in the Chamber is a member of that particular religion. Apparently, only about 12,000 people around the country are, so it would be easy to dismiss them as unimportant people who have a very rigid narrow lifestyle, but although I do not share their beliefs I firmly believe that the House of Commons is precisely the place where the standard should be taken up for tiny minorities. If we do not do it now and do not achieve progress this morning, we are failing in our duty.

Andrew Dismore: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a man of great faith. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned the biblical reference Romans 13.1, which I have looked up. I have some difficulty in understanding the basis of the Plymouth Brethren's objection. Romans 13.1, the Kings James version, says:
	"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
	Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain how the Plymouth Brethren use that particular biblical reference to reach their objection. I know he is a man who understands these issues very well. If I am to understand the basis of this debate, I would like to understand that. In the debate on a previous Bill, we spent some time examining the basis of the argument. I would like to understand the basis of this one.

Edward Leigh: Although this Chamber is very well placed to identify a minority group and to try to ensure a mechanism by which that minority group can live properly in society, it is not well equipped to start to look into the detailed religious beliefs of minorities, whether the Plymouth Brethren or any other, and to say why they have come to their views. The fact is that they have come to those views and they believe that, if people take out an annuity or an assurance policy they are gambling with life. They believe that it is prohibited in the Bible.
	None of us in the Chamber shares that view. All of us are happy with taking out insurance policies, annuities and all the rest of it. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is this minority. The Minister's speech was disappointing in that respect. She is entitled to say that the amendment is defective and that she is opposed to a retirement failsafe fund. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to landing lights. It is not a question of not being able to see the landing lights. We have no conception after this short debate of where the Minister is going. Despite numerous interventions—she was questioned again and again—she has not shed the slightest bit of light on how she intends to deal with these people.
	I would have thought—I hope that the Minister will have a chance to sum up in this debate—that it was possible for her to say, "We have these people whom we are not allowed to mention who are advising us, some of the cleverest people in the land. We have this tiny minority of 12,000 people." As I understand it, she is saying that, if she were to accommodate that minority, it would create a loophole for wealthy people who are not Plymouth Brethren. That is an understandable point of view.
	Would it not be more honest, then, for the Minister to say, "This is such a technically difficult subject, this is such a small minority that I am never going to be able to resolve the issue. If I make an exception to help that particular minority, a much wider group of wealthy taxpayers will pour through the loophole"? That would be a more honest point of view. The Plymouth Brethren would have to accept that. They would have to accept that they will never be able to have an annuity and will have to find some other mechanism. The Minister said that there were other mechanisms, but she was not prepared to articulate them.
	This debate is depressing because, frankly, it is disingenuous. The Minister could say either that she would never be able to accommodate the concerns—we could understand that—or that she had been discussing the matter with her officials for four years and there was a way of dealing with it that she was prepared to share with the House without giving a commitment today, which no one would expect. We would like a brief elucidation of how she thinks the problem can be resolved. If it cannot be resolved, let us be honest and admit it here in winding up the debate today.

Barry Gardiner: I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The amendment should be called the proselytising or evangelical amendment.
	Members have talked about how there are only a mere 12,000 Plymouth Brethren in the entire United Kingdom. I suspect that were the amendment to be passed, that 12,000 might become closer to 12 million. The amendment's supporters are seeking to put through a package without specifying what is in it, but which would achieve certain objectives that would have extremely damaging consequences for the Treasury, as they well know.

Howard Flight: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly as saying that there are at least 12 million people who are opposed to the Government's policy in this area?

Barry Gardiner: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, that is not what I am saying. If 12 million people were to be given by the Government what amounts to an enormous loophole through the taxation system, they might well avail themselves of it. I could not support that and I trust that the hon. Gentleman would not either.
	I understand the considerable concern about annuities that has prompted the Bill. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for the way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House and conducted Second Reading, and the skilful way in which he dealt with the Committee. The decline in the equities market and the falling rate that annuities now achieve have caused concern about security in retirement. Obviously, that is something that the Government must address and are addressing through consultation.
	It is in all of our interests that people's savings for retirement are secured into the future, but nothing could prompt me to go quite as far as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in claiming that annuities were not, in principle, a secure way of doing that. He gave a scenario in which oil prices escalated and inflation became rampant, so that even guaranteed annuities were not able to achieve the expected security that they might otherwise provide in old age.

Howard Flight: It is clear that the indexed annuities proposed in the Bill do that. It is widely known and understood that guaranteed annuities, which are not indexed, cannot provide any secure real income.

Barry Gardiner: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's remarks that annuities do not provide the most secure way of providing for one's retirement income way into the future. He and his party have always maintained that—they maintained it when in government—and I should be wholly surprised if they tried to imply otherwise at this stage. The example that he uses—rampant inflation and escalating oil prices—fails to take into account the effect of the equities market on funds that would be in precisely the investment vehicle that he proposes. Of course, there would be similar consequential and deleterious effects. It is disingenuous of him to claim that one could discover a problem with annuities in this context, but not with his proposed investment vehicle. To be honest, I expect better of him, knowing how well he understands these issues.
	My hon. Friend the Minister spoke extremely cogently about mortality drag, but several sedentary interventions implied otherwise. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that the older one becomes, the older one is likely to become, but anybody who understands the business of actuaries and actuarial tables will realise exactly what the Minister was referring to. Over time, mortalities that would occur at an earlier rate fall away, so life expectancy increases—up to a certain point. As with all such matters, there are limiting parameters. Of course, the idea that one can go on to 130 once one attains the great age of 100 is complete nonsense. Such cheapskate responses by Opposition Members to the Minister's arguments are wholly inappropriate.
	As the Minister explained, the costs arising from the problem of mortality drag are substantial, and I seek from the Opposition a response to the point that I tried to make in an intervention. Precisely how would they deal with the global effect of a rise in the age at which people seek to take out annuities? I will happily give way to any Opposition Member, including the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who proposed the Bill. Would he care to explain that point to the House, because it is important and the Opposition have yet to resolve it? I see that I have no takers, which obviously means that they have no response to make.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) encouraged us to look more carefully at the biblical reference in Romans 13.1, given to us by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), which is the basis for the argument. I shall quote from the slightly more up-to-date version that I have obtained—the revised standard version—rather than the King James version.

Angela Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Gardiner: I will—as soon as I have read the passage to which the hon. Lady referred:
	"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
	I know that certain pages of Private Eye may carry such a view, but I find it hard to understand how the hon. Lady makes the leap from the passage
	"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities"
	to the position that no one who believes that passage should take out insurance. In this country, the governing authorities—this Parliament—stipulate that those who drive a car or employ people must take out insurance. Therefore, in what way does that passage, of all passages, suggest that people should not submit themselves to the governing authorities?

Angela Browning: The answer is simple. As a Member of Parliament, I respect the views, whether religious or other, that people hold on a point of conscience based on what they believe, although I neither share nor challenge them. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not show that respect. If I may say so, I hope that his remarks are not part of a filibuster. Let me give him a Shakespeare quote:
	"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose."
	It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is doing just that.

Barry Gardiner: Let me point out that it was not I who began quoting the scriptures; it was the hon. Lady herself. She gave the reference and it is that which I ask her to explain.

Angela Browning: rose—

Barry Gardiner: I shall give way again in due course, but, before my forked tail grows any longer, I should have a chance to finish my remarks.
	I have absolutely no case to make against the estimable beliefs sincerely held by any group in this country. I am not challenging such beliefs; I am challenging whether the hon. Lady can possibly be correct in citing that particular passage as the basis for such belief.

Angela Browning: I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman. The Plymouth Brethren's response to the Government's consultation document says:
	"The fellowship had its origins before 1830. We support Government as instituted by God (Romans 13.1)".
	That is what I quoted to him, and I accept that it is the belief of a group of people. I do not challenge it and I do not question it; I respect it. It is about time that he showed some respect.
	The hon. Member for Hendon spoke earlier about the need to change the marriage laws in respect of the Jewish community. I am not Jewish and I do not share their faith, but I respect it. I believe that it is the duty of the House to take account of the needs of the Jewish faith. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is not able to do the same for the Plymouth Brethren.

Barry Gardiner: Once again, I must rebut what the hon. Lady says. My lack of respect applies not to the beliefs of the Plymouth Brethren, but to her remarks. I do not respect them because they are wrong. [Interruption.] If she will just listen before bouncing out of her seat again, I shall make my point.
	The Plymouth Brethren, in the preamble to their remarks, refer to their general and widespread respect for government and cite Romans 13.1 as evidence of biblical backing for that respect. However, the hon. Lady quoted that biblical passage not when asked why the Plymouth Brethren have a general respect for the authorities ordained by God, but in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon about why they believe that they should not take out insurance policies.
	The point I am making to the hon. Lady—if she will only listen, rather than bouncing up yet again—is that that passage does not substantiate the belief of the Plymouth Brethren about insurance policies. If she told us what biblical foundation the Brethren have for that belief, it would be a more proper response to what was said by the hon. Member for Hendon. The fact is that she was mistaken in her biblical citation.

Angela Browning: I hesitate to continue this filibuster, and I am not an official advocate for the Brethren, but I think I can share my understanding of why they do not consider life insurance, and products or policies associated with it, acceptable. They render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's, and therefore they keep the law of the land. If the law of the land says that a motor vehicle must be insured, for obvious reasons, they keep that law, according to my understanding. The taking out of a life policy or an annuity, however, is not a compulsory law of the land, except as indicated in the current pensions legislation. The Brethren therefore opt not to avail themselves of that opportunity. The aim is to allow them to provide for their retirement without having to avail themselves of it.
	Failing to take out an annuity is not a criminal offence. There is a clear differentiation between abiding by the rules of mammon, or of Government, and not taking advantage of that opportunity. As I have said, I am not an official advocate of the Brethren, but I understand them to believe that matters of life and death are matters not for man but for God. I respect those beliefs, because I think the Brethren hold them sincerely. That is what the House needs to understand.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for coming to the point, but she has not yet done what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon asked her to do. She has not given us the biblical basis.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Gardiner: I should be delighted to do so.

Edward Leigh: This illustrates why it is wrong to engage in this kind of debate, but we may as well get it right. I have checked with the Plymouth Brethren, and they say that the biblical reference on which they base their belief is I Corinthians chapter 6, verses 19-20. They regard any form of life annuity as a life insurance policy, which they have consistently refused. They quote the Bible, which states
	"Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price."
	That is the basis of their beliefs, and we should respect it.

Barry Gardiner: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, from whom we have finally secured the proper response to the question posed by the hon. Member for Hendon. I hope the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton accepts that the quotation she gave earlier did not provide that response, and that we have now plugged the gap.
	The debate has perhaps focused too much on matters of theology and too little on other matters—

Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Gardiner: With trepidation, I give way to the theological gentleman behind me.

Andrew Dismore: I certainly do not claim to be a theological gentleman, but I think that this part of the debate is very important. If we are to provide a remedy for the Plymouth Brethren, we must understand the basis of their objection. We must work out their theological position if we are to find an answer. I thank the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for giving us the correct reference: I should like to look it up for myself, but I suspect there will not be time for me to do so during this short debate.
	My hon. Friend is right to explore the issue further with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), and I am surprised that she objected so much. Only by understanding the basis of the objection can we work together to find a solution.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and also to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for identifying the source of all this.
	The reason for my concern about the amendment is plain. It introduces a vehicle to achieve a particular purpose without specifying in any way—leaving it open to subsequent regulation—how that should be effected. It says, "We want you to do something in this area that will broadly achieve this effect, but, for the life of us, we can't work out how you could possibly do it." That may be a good example of the benefits of opposition—one can simply say things without having to work out the nuts and bolts of how you get from A, one's starting point, to B, the end result that one wants. It seems to betoken great irresponsibility on the part of the Opposition if they seek to put that onus on Government without specifying in any way how it might come about.
	My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has made it clear that the Opposition amendment is not only technically at fault. I have no doubt that if the amendment were substantive the Government could avail themselves of draftsmen who could remedy those deficiencies, but it is not a substantive amendment. It is an amendment that has a hole at its heart. It is a Henry VIII clause that would leave the Government to fill in the regulations at a later date. For that reason, I cannot accept it.

Andrew Dismore: I also have a few comments on this group of amendments. I am sorry that Opposition Members took objection to my question, which was simply an attempt to try to understand the basis of the Christian Brethren's objection. Only if we examine the basis of the objection in detail and its origin can we start to think about providing a remedy. If I may draw a contrast between their reaction and the approach adopted in relation to the previous Bill, we researched in great detail the background to why there was a problem with Jewish law and what could be done to deal practically with that problem. That was what we achieved in the previous Bill which, I am pleased to say, passed through the House earlier. The difficulty here is that until we get to the bottom of the problem from the Christian Brethren's point of view, it is difficult to start trying to find a measure that can specifically plug that gap.
	One can approach this problem in two different ways. One can pursue a dialogue, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary suggested, to try to find a way to meet the requirements and tenets of the faith, yet at the same time satisfy the Inland Revenue, which has its own tenets that—I am afraid to say—are sometimes more obscure than those of the Plymouth Brethren. In the end, however, we must try to satisfy their requirements. For example, one can have a specific conscientious objection clause for the Plymouth Brethren, as the previous Bill had a specific reference to the Jewish faith. Alternatively, one can try to devise a general rule that will sort out the particular problem but will not lead to wider abuses.
	To continue the classical themes of the previous debate, I am worried that if we are not careful we could end up creating a Trojan horse. We can introduce an amendment to provide for the 12,000 or so members of the Plymouth Brethren, for whom I have great sympathy and whose problem I would want to address, but how do we create a remedy that does not at the same time create a loophole—a Trojan horse—that will allow many other people for whom the reform is not intended to take advantage of it? That is the dichotomy facing my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and the Treasury in trying to accommodate the Plymouth Brethren.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) opened his remarks by saying that there was the potential to create a great proselytising army on behalf of the Plymouth Brethren, and there is force in that argument. I am afraid that, sometimes, rich people adopt all sorts of strange practices to try to avoid their obligations to the Inland Revenue. We know about the loophole of living overseas, and a miraculous conversion to the Plymouth Brethren may not be out of the question for some people if they saw that they might gain financial benefit from it, thus abusing the very real faith and tenet of the Christian Brethren.
	We cannot get round this problem simply by having a conscientious objection clause in the way that the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill contained a specific application for the Jewish community. The alternative is to try to develop a rule of general applicability that would solve the problem of the Plymouth Brethren without leading to all the other ills that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in introducing the debate.
	I am not an expert in annuities, although I know a little more about the subject now than I did before Second Reading, but I understand why it is so difficult to resolve this problem. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is no longer in his place, talked about conscientious objection. If we were to allow conscientious objection to paying taxes, several million people might subscribe to it and the whole country would grind to a halt.
	Although we must develop a rule of general applicability for the reasons that I have outlined, it is difficult to see how to go about it. I am not surprised that discussions have been taking place for the past four years, trying to find a solution that satisfies everybody. I sympathise with the position of my hon. Friend the Minister in trying to satisfy the Plymouth Brethren in this respect. The problem dates back to before 1830. My hon. Friend was quoting from a later version of the Bible, whereas I was quoting from the St. James version, which is the one on which the Plymouth Brethren base their objection to insurance. In the previous debate on the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill, we solved a problem that had lasted for 2,000 years. We did so relatively easily in the end but only after considerable debate, which had continued for several years before the Family Law Act 1996 was passed. Sometimes it takes an awfully long time to find a solution to these difficult and knotty problems of faith.
	I am grateful that the Minister has indicated her willingness to maintain the dialogue with the Plymouth Brethren, but to try to foist a solution on them, as the amendments seek to do, is the wrong way to achieve that objective.

Ruth Kelly: I do not intend today to have a full debate on the underlying rationale behind the Christian Brethren's objection to the use of annuity products. I understand that their objection has been made in a genuine way to the Treasury and the Inland Revenue.
	The amendments proposed by Members—I recognise the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—have been made in good faith and I accept the motivation behind them. This debate is totally without self-interest because the Christian Brethren do not vote, but it is only right that the House should take an interest in the protection of minorities. They should be able to exercise their conscience in as full a way as the Government and society can provide for.
	However, I do not accept that the route provided by this private Member's Bill can enable the Government to meet our objectives in providing secure, long-term savings in retirement and to deal with the difficulties faced by the Christian Brethren in relation to those issues. I set out clearly in my opening remarks some of the technical difficulties and explained why I do not believe that the matter can be dealt with by regulation—for example, there is no provision to amend section 633 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 in that regard.
	I also have more serious concerns. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, the Bill would not just create a loophole for the few but would undermine the whole purpose of the Bill. That point was reinforced by my hon. Friends. I do not see how the provisions can be set in the context of a private Member's Bill based on the compulsory annuity purchase by the majority of the population at age 65. I cannot see how the two are compatible.

Howard Flight: I thank the Minister for giving way. As she must be clear, the key purpose of the amendments is to secure from the Government a commitment that they will address the needs of the Plymouth Brethren, not that they will consider doing it or continue talking for ages.

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hope that hon. Members realise that I also enter these negotiations in good faith and, as far as possible, I am committed to finding a solution to the issues faced by the Christian Brethren. However, it is important to set the provisions in context.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is no longer in his place, drew a parallel between the Christian Brethren and the conscientious objectors who did not want to fight during the war. Such parallels are not illuminating in this context. We have to try to find a way to enable Christian Brethren to save for a secure income in retirement in a way that does not conflict with their religious beliefs. That is what I intend to try to facilitate.
	Officials at the Inland Revenue are already involved in detailed and constructive dialogue with the Christian Brethren. I have published a consultation document and the Christian Brethren have provided a response. [Interruption.] I note the return of the hon. Member for Twickenham. Inland Revenue officials are now exploring with sincere and genuine people a way in which they could provide a secure income in retirement outside the current pensions framework. We have been exploring particularly how they might use the ISA framework.
	At the moment, the Christian Brethren can contribute to cash ISAs for themselves or their employees. The problem is that employees might be tempted to withdraw some of the money from the ISA before they reach retirement age and to use it for other purposes. The difficulty is that that is down to individual choice. I understand that the Brethren, as employers, would prefer there to be some lock-in and the dialogue is continuing. However, it is difficult to provide a commitment to a lock-in for one group of individuals that would not apply to the majority of the population. It is not clear that we could provide a specific lock-in, and clearly a general lock-in would frustrate the general thrust of the Government's savings policy. ISAs are designed to be a flexible savings vehicle which allows immediate withdrawal and transfer between providers. However, negotiations are continuing.
	I believe that the Christian Brethren understand that the Inland Revenue is looking at this in a constructive manner. Progress is being made in meeting some of their concerns and we may be able to find a way forward that addresses their needs and the Government's concerns. Of course I am committed to continuing the dialogue until both parties are satisfied with the outcome. I congratulate the hon. Members who tabled the amendments as it is right and proper that we discuss these issues in the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 59.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 16, leave out—
	'Subject to subsection (7) below'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 9.

Ruth Kelly: The change made by the Bill does not recognise the differing life expectancies of different groups that insurers take into account in setting annuity rates. The measure would remove the right of insurers to underwrite personal pension annuities on the basis of sex, or to allow that to be taken into account as a risk factor. It would force personal pension annuity providers to use composite annuity rates averaging male and female factors.
	It is argued that women get a raw deal because the annuity rates that they receive are lower than men's, but that is because of women's longer average life span. At the top rates that are currently available, a 65-year-old man who purchases an annuity for £100,000 might receive £706 a month. The comparable figure for a female purchaser would be £648 a month. However, let us consider what they would receive for the years after their respective life expectancies. The male's total payments for the 17 years over his expected life span would be £144,101, whereas for the 20 years over the female's life expectancy, she would receive £155,618.
	Clearly, interest and inflation rates play a large part in assessing the value of the respective amounts, but those simple figures illustrate that the value of a woman's annuity is at least no less than that of a man. Other aspects being equal, an annuity payable to a woman may be smaller than that payable to a man, but it will on average be paid over a longer period.
	It is not difficult to understand that unisex annuities would generally favour women and disadvantage men. On average, a man will not live as long as a woman. His annuity will therefore be paid for a shorter period than a woman's, and for the same outlay. That is simply illustrated. If a unisex annuity paid £675 a month for an outlay of £100,000, the male would receive £137,700 for the years after his expected life span whereas the female would receive £162,000. The Bill would prevent a man from entering into a personal pension annuity contract and buying with his money a pension that reflected his life expectancy.
	Another effect is that, when setting a composite rate, any provider would be at risk of the male/female take-up not matching the assumed mix, and could therefore build in a margin that would lower annuity rates generally. The proposed change would also introduce inconsistency between types of pension arrangement. If the annuity was bought to secure benefits from an occupational pension scheme or a retirement annuity contract, rates could still take account of the annuitant's sex.
	For those reasons, the Government cannot support the measure and I recommend the amendment to hon. Members.

David Curry: We are now embarking on a subject that is central to the Bill. We must address the disparity between the treatment of men and women. I have listened to the Minister's comments, and her arguments are well put but intellectually tenuous. She admitted that a similar investment made by someone of either gender would result in a different outcome in terms of the income paid annually. Because women live longer, that would accumulate, so the total amount paid would be greater.
	We could take this point to a more logical conclusion, of course, and open the gap between the rates much further. Then you, Madam Deputy Speaker, who I hope will live to a ripe old age, would say about your private pension, "It was a pretty miserable income year on year but, by gum, it didn't half add up at the end of my life, so I did very well out of it." What matters is people's expectation of the amount they have to live on which supplements their other pensions. The annual income is what counts in these calculations, not just the length of time over which it is paid.
	I have introduced the idea of a unisex annuity because I think that it must be addressed. I accept that it has some penalties and could depress the rate available for men. Because most people buy flat-rate annuities, because most people who buy such annuities are men and because men have a shorter life expectancy than women, women get a raw deal. More and more women are acquiring their own pensions and they are surprised at how low some yields are.
	Equally, the life expectancy gap is closing. There has been much explanation this morning of what life expectancy is, including the seemingly perverse phenomenon that the longer one lives, the longer one is going to live. However, that gap is closing between the two sexes and, as a member of the male sex, I am rather relieved. So increasing numbers of women will see themselves as being penalised.
	The Minister will say that our proposal has all sorts of nefarious consequences. I think that if there is a will to address this issue, and if we say that we must overcome the disadvantage for women, the industry will find a way of delivering. It is a matter of equity.
	This is the first Government to appoint a Minister for Women. It is a daft thing to do—I have always opposed such a notion. So it is curious that they are resolutely reaffirming their ability to continue discriminating against women. Yet here am I, from the side of the House that is supposed to be frightfully traditional about these matters, saying that we must break this cycle of disadvantage. We must at some stage grasp the nettle. That is why this proposal is in the Bill; I am very happy to defend it and to oppose the Government's attempts to remove it.

Barry Gardiner: I hate to go back into history any further than we have already done, considering that we have talked about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD under the Emperor Vespasian and the letters of St. Paul. However, I wish to refer to the Marine Insurance Act 1906 which, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is aware, is the consolidation Act upon which all insurance policies have to be written. It is one of the features of insurance that distinguishes it from activities such as gaming and gambling; they are based on risk, not certainty, and on the pooling of risk.
	I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is inviting the House to breach one of those fundamentals. I know that he does not lack understanding about the functioning of actuaries, but he is seeking to gloss over why actuaries act in the way they do. Of course, it is the job of an actuary to predict the life expectancy of particular classes of people who want to make provision through annuity for their retirement. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary ably pointed out, on average, women live longer than men, and that is a fact of which the actuaries must take account.

Howard Flight: Will the hon. Gentleman step back and deal with a conceptual issue? I cannot see why there should be any insurance regulation or law stating that people must pool risk on a gender-divided basis. Such provision was a custom in the past because of differences between the legal positions of men and women going back to the beginning of the century. However, whether one likes that or not, is there any argument for requiring in insurance regulation or law that the pooling of risk be divided between the sexes?

Barry Gardiner: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some clear examples of distinctions that the insurance industry rightly and properly makes between classes of people for insurance purposes. Actuaries must take account of all sorts of distinctions. If a known factor that affects mortality exists in respect of somebody who is applying for a policy, it would be against the law for that person not to notify the provider. Indeed, annuities are one of the rare aspects of insurance on which one can say, "I am more likely to die," and receive a corresponding benefit as a result. It seems perverse, but curtailed life annuities with a known finite term rightly bring increased immediate short-term benefits for the years of life that remain to the policyholder.
	As actuaries must work on the information that they have and project into the future the income base that is available to them to achieve a certain outgoing over the period projected for the class of person they are considering, it is absolutely right that they should take account of age profile discrepancies.

Howard Flight: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that certain ethnic minorities in our country have different life expectancies from those of indigenous people. Is he arguing that there is some obligation for those providing annuities to work out for particular ethnic minorities packages that are different from those for white Caucasians? The same point of principle is involved.

Barry Gardiner: I am trying to make this simple point: actuaries work out expected revenue against expected expenditure. On that basis, it is proper that they should take account of the profile of the class of the customer in question in order to deliver the maximum benefit to that customer. I find it staggering that an hon. Member who is so well known in the House for his views on the freedom of the market and on ensuring that commercial activity is unfettered and unconstrained should be trying to impose restraints. A benefit is being provided to customers by allowing a differentiation that will accrue over time to the person who takes out the annuity.

David Curry: I am slightly puzzled about why there are so many challenges to such rules, which appear to discriminate against women, including challenges that end up in the European Court. As we are speaking actuarially, what odds would the hon. Gentleman give that in 10 years' time we will still be able to differentiate according to gender in the rates that are set for annuities?

Barry Gardiner: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, I come from an insurance background, not a gambling one, so I shall not accept his wager.
	Returning to ancient Greece, Conservative Members are proposing a Procrustean way of achieving equality. Procrustes was the—hopefully mythical—character who used to lay people down on his bed to see how they measured up to it. If their feet went off the end, he chopped them off; if they did not quite reach it, he attached a couple of ropes and dragged them out until they measured up exactly. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is currently inequality between men and women, but that is not so—actuaries are there precisely to resolve such inequalities. Amalgamating women and men would mean stretching out the women and chopping the legs off the men to achieve a kind of unitary Procrustean equality.

David Curry: I hate to challenge the hon. Gentleman's mythology, but surely the present rules do precisely that. The way in which they operate short-changes women—in a sense, a constant shaving of ladies' feet.

Barry Gardiner: I did not buy the company, as Mr. Ronson would say, and I do not buy the right hon. Gentleman's argument. There is short-changing over a short period, but exact equality over the whole period. The actuary's job is to ensure that somebody who has a lifespan of, say, 12 years, gets £100 a year, whereas somebody with a lifespan of 10 years gets £120 a year, so that each person ends up getting the same benefits. That is the current situation in law, which the right hon. Gentleman wants to change.
	Conservative Members want to ensure that instead of those with shorter life expectancies getting more each year, but the same overall, those with longer life expectancies—who at present get slightly less each year, but the same overall—should be amalgamated down to a kind of middle way. I cannot believe it—here I am, a good new Labour politician opposing the middle way. Nevertheless, on this occasion I must do so, because that is what Conservative Members seek to impose through their misguided proposal.

Andrew Dismore: Having first declared an interest as a man—at least, I was last time I looked—I remind Conservative Members that there are certain biological differences between the sexes, one being that women live longer than men. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) eloquently described the effect that that has on the arithmetic of calculating annuities. I remind the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) of the point that I made on Second Reading, because he has still not come up with an answer to it. I said:
	"What about the sex discrimination legislation and the double exemption? Is it the role of private sector provision to level up between Peter and Pauline . . . or is that the responsibility of the state? There is nothing wrong with the state's involvement in pooling risk between the sexes. I take the point that when each sex reaches the age of 65 the differences between life expectancy are somewhat lower. However, I question whether it is right for the private sector to adopt this position, bearing in mind how annuities are currently calculated for pooling risk."—[Official Report, 11 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 848.]
	That is the essence of the argument. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is at risk of creating inequality between the sexes for the reasons eloquently set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North.
	It seems paradoxical that Labour Members should advocate a position that, on the face of it, is contrary to our deeply held belief in equality for everyone. To achieve equality for everyone, we must recognise the fact that people are not equal in certain biological respects, such as age, and that can be done through the existing system of annuities. I passionately believe in equality, and the state clearly has a role to play in that, but should we regulate private sector rights?
	The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has been discussing the State Pension Credit Bill, and we have produced a report on that subject which was published a couple of hours ago. We have made some important points about the need to ensure that women are properly catered for under the pension credit scheme, especially bearing in mind the fact that pension credit will probably favour women. We have also considered take-up. Those are important points for the state to take into account. On national insurance and old age pensions, it is vital and right that the state should have that equalising mechanism. However, is it appropriate for us to impose the state's will on the private sector?

Barry Gardiner: If the amendment were passed, it would mean that, although men and women for the same annuity payment would receive the same return each year, women, who on average live longer, would on average gain substantially more than men. That is why the effect of the amendment would be to provide not equality but inequality.

Andrew Dismore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but the amendment goes beyond that. To achieve that objective, we have to rob Peter to pay Pauline, because the money must come from somewhere. Nothing in the amendment creates a bigger pot of money to allocate. It equalises things between men and women. The only way to do that—as the woman has to get more for her contribution—is to take the money away from the man's annuity.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman asked whether it is right for the state to impose its will on the private sector. That is a welcome statement from him. As the Government keep boasting about minimum income and minimum wage, I am glad that he has had a Pauline conversion. [Interruption.] I do not know whether that is from Corinthians as well.
	The Equal Pay Act 1970 has been amended by the Government. A series of measures show that they believe that they have a specific role to intervene in this area.

Andrew Dismore: At the risk of being sent off down the highways and byways of equal opportunities, I should say that the right hon. Gentleman points up the distinction between the right role of the state—in trying to regulate the balance between the sexes—and the wrong role. If a woman is doing work of equal value to that of a man, it is appropriate that she should get the same rate of pay. That is the position we are considering now. It is right that if a woman buys an annuity she should have the product of that annuity. It is right that if a man buys an annuity he should also have the product of that annuity. To achieve the same amount year on year, the woman would have to pay more.
	The right hon. Gentleman is not trying to achieve equality through equal work for equal value, or in this case equal pension for equal contribution. He is taking money away from the man to meet the aspirations of the woman for her annuity.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman stated that one of the consequences of what we are proposing would be more demand, as it were, for a pot that was unchanged. The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill in its entirety. As people would not have to commit the whole of their pension funds to an annuity, that part that would not be necessary to maintain them above the level of income could be used for other purposes. There would not be the same volume of demand chasing the same pot.

Andrew Dismore: In the end, there is no more money available in the overall pot. We can fiddle round the edges as much as we like and we can talk about taking an annuity to a later date. As I said on Second Reading, I have great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's overall objective of achieving annuity reform. At the risk of making a Second Reading point, the Bill does not provide a mechanism for doing that. As I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, I hope that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions will conduct an overall inquiry into private sector pension provision later in the year. I hope that the problem of sorting out annuities will form part of that inquiry.
	I return to my basic bull point. Money is being taken away from one gender to compensate the other. The right hon. Gentleman referred earlier to Europe. The counter-argument is that in this context Europe—there was an earlier discussion about the convention on human rights—favours the view that is being advocated by Labour Members rather than the one advanced by Conservative Members. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, especially in relation to part II of the first protocol of article 1, which deals with the protection of property? It is straightforward:
	"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
	Through the amendment, the right hon. Gentleman is not using the state, through its own mechanisms, to achieve his objective through taxation, national insurance and the benefit system. He would effectively deprive men who have made contributions towards their annuity pots of their possessions. That is because their possessions include their stake in their pension fund. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is falling foul of human rights legislation.

Barry Gardiner: I follow carefully and agree fundamentally with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that it is important that the movers of the amendment recognise that while they might talk about the class of people for actuaries to consider, and take a different class, they are proposing to introduce regulations that force actuaries to class all people together rather than, as at present, to determine for themselves, as providers of insurance, how they will classify their customers, unfettered by legislation?
	Stringent regulation is being proposed of an industry that at present is able to offer diversity of service to its customers. If there were an insurance company that wished to pursue the proposals put forward by Conservative Members, and thought that it was commercially viable to do so, it would be free in the market to adopt that policy. However, there is not a company that wishes to take that course. As good free marketeers, I am sure that Conservative Members will agree that that is why their proposals are wrong.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is good reason why a company would not adopt that approach, and that is that it would go out of business extremely quickly. It would not be meeting the needs of its customers, whether men or women. My hon. Friend makes some important points, to which I shall return, concerning retrospectivity and the disincentive to save.
	I return to the point that I was making in the context of the Human Rights Act.

Howard Flight: There is an important principle in relation to the human rights argument. That is why I asked earlier what rules or laws were involved. Everyone understands that women live longer than men and why the situation is as it is. If white men lived longer than black men and white women lived longer than black women, we would not permit the insurance industry to offer different rates on the grounds of people's colour or skin. If we believe that men and women are equal, is there not a similar logic that we should not apply prejudice on the ground of sex, one way or the other, among all human beings?

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful for that intervention. Again, the hon. Gentleman is mixing up the roles of the state and the private sector. The state cannot, must not and should not discriminate between gender or race along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Indeed, the state does not do so. We have been working very hard as a Government to improve sex and race discrimination legislation in a variety of sectors, including its applicability to government itself, to ensure that there is no discrimination, but I come back to the basic point that has been advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. A pension contract is an individual contract based on an individual annuity assessment between the individual pensioner and the pension-providing company, the life insurance company.
	I took out my pension scheme with, I regret to say, Equitable Life—and thereby hangs a tale—many years ago when I was in my late 20s. Even though I was hale and hearty, I was required to undergo a medical examination so that it could determine, presumably through its annuity projections, how long I was going to live. I had to fill in a detailed questionnaire about my family history, what my grandparents died of, my parents' family history and my brother's medical history. The company wanted to calculate my life expectancy to ensure that I pay the right amount of money in my contributions and receive what I would like to receive at the other end. The same goes for when it calculates the annuity itself.
	No doubt when I come to cash in what is no doubt a very diminished fund with Equitable Life, I will again have to undergo all the rigmarole to work out how much it will pay out. If I do not have to do so, so much the better. Nevertheless that is an individual contract between me and Equitable Life. That is why we all had to have the ballot on the Equitable Life solution.

Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is wrong? The fact is that under legislation any insurance company is allowed to break down by ethnicity or by any other feature which it considers appropriate its class for annuitisation. For his own personal interest, he may care to note that ethnic minorities have differing life expectancies, and it works to their advantage on the whole because they get more each year on their annuity as a result. The point is that the hon. Gentleman is—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention is going on for a rather long time.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to come to that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North makes the point in his usual eloquent way. If the contract is an individual—

David Curry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Dismore: Let me deal with the previous intervention and then I will be happy to let the right hon. Gentleman intervene.
	If the contract is an individual contract, it is inevitable that the benefits that flow from it must attach to the individual concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North is right: insurance companies do make those distinctions. Several years ago, there was a big argument about whether insurance companies should know whether someone had HIV and the impact that that would have on the assessment of life expectancy and annuities. These things are a fact of life. Some people live longer than others. If I were to take out a particular insurance policy, being somewhat overweight and under-exercised—I think far too many of us in the House are—then compared with someone of the same age who is in the SAS, although that is a hazardous profession, I would probably have to pay more.
	That is a fact of life in the provision of pensions in the private sector. We are all different; we all have to face different risks. We all have different life expectancies. Each individual pension product is tailored to our individual requirements, whether we be men or women.

David Curry: If the hon. Gentleman were to die young, would he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North that that was an advantage to him because, in his brief span of life when he was receiving his private pension, he got more?

Andrew Dismore: I am not sure how to follow that intervention, but it does not detract from my basic bull point—from which I have been drawn away by the various interventions I have taken—concerning the Human Rights Act.
	Even though Equitable Life seems to be doing its best to take my pension fund away from me, the requirement under human rights legislation is that no one should be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest. That requirement cannot be met by the proposals of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. I agree that we should adopt that approach in relation to matters that are entirely under the control of the state, such as national insurance contributions, taxation, benefits and the equalisation of wages to make sure that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip at work. However, that is not the case with pension provision.
	I wish to refer to retrospectivity, on which the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are silent. I have been with Equitable Life for 20 years, and others have been in pension funds for longer. Everybody would have entered into these arrangements on the basis of the projections as they then were. Are we now to say that all those people who entered into contracts on that basis will find that those numbers have to be unscrambled and rescrambled to meet the requirements of the proposed provision? Or is the provision intended only to apply to new insurance contracts that take effect 40, 50 or 60 years in the future?
	My concern is that the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps not thought through the implications of that measure. The proposal will have major implications for people's lifestyle projections. Most people approaching their mid-forties will start to think about the age at which they can afford to retire and what their annuity will be. They will have been making their contributions through their lives on that basis.
	If the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that a person's insurance provider now has to recalculate the figures and share the money out to equalise between the sexes, that person may find that the projections on which he has been living his life, in terms of his future provision, are drastically wrong, while a women in the same position might find herself rather better off. The proposals do not deal with retrospectivity in sorting out decisions that were taken decades ago in some cases.

Angela Browning: Is not that exactly the situation people with pensions at the moment find themselves in now, following the imposition of advance corporation tax by the Chancellor to the tune of £5 billion a year on pension funds? People who took out a pension with a specific premium and a projection of what they might receive are now not going to receive that amount purely because of the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Andrew Dismore: I will not get drawn down that byway, but I say to the hon. Lady that the effect is the same for men and women. That takes me back to my original point about the role of the state as opposed to the role of the private sector. So far as I can see—I will happily take an intervention on this—the proposals do not deal with retrospectivity.
	I wish to refer to disincentives to save. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has been doing a detailed study of the pension credit. We have heard a lot of interesting arguments from the experts who have given evidence, and from the Minister, regarding incentives and disincentives to save. Professor Dilnott gave us a detailed analysis of why some bits of the pension credit were an incentive and others might be a disincentive. It got extremely complicated and I became lost in the figures; however, he did not convince me on that issue.
	I can be sure that if we say to a man that he can put a pound into his pension fund but will get back only 80p of it when he retires, with the other 20p going to the pension of a woman he may not even have met to make sure that she has the same pension—which she will have for a lot longer than him—that will be a real disincentive to save; a far worse disincentive than anything raised by the Conservatives in terms of the pension credit.

Barry Gardiner: This is an extremely important element of my hon. Friend's remarks. Is he aware of a report prepared for the Association of British Insurers by Oliver, Wyman and Company, entitled "The future regulation of UK savings and investment—targeting the savings gap"? It points out that a pension provision savings gap of £27 billion is building up, and that it cannot be curtailed simply through financial education and tax incentives. The most important element to which it draws attention is the need to increase effective advice to savers by providing exactly the information that my hon. Friend alludes to. A differential rate for men and women per pound invested in savings would have entirely the opposite effect, and would probably increase the £27 billion gap still further.

Howard Flight: rose—

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North cannot take an intervention, but I will be happy to do so in a moment. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which reinforces the basic policy issue that I am trying to address. It is in all our interests that people save for their future, and that is the entire thrust of Government policy. A prime objective of the pension credit is to reward people who have saved. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the arguments advanced by his own party in relation to stakeholder pensions and—perhaps more importantly—to the state second pension: that they contain in-built disincentives because of an equalisation factor between rich and poor. For him to argue that his proposal will not prove a disincentive is therefore like the pot calling the kettle black.

Howard Flight: Is there not a contradiction between the hon. Gentleman's comment about wanting people to save more for retirement, and the previous comment about the £27 billion gap? The Minister said that one of her main objections to the Bill is that, by encouraging people to save more for retirement, it will lead them to incur tax costs.

Andrew Dismore: That is not the Government's policy objective—at least, I hope it is not. The objective of our discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is to hammer home the need for people to provide for their future. If one consequence of their making such provision is that some of it will be taken away—a breach of human rights legislation—they simply will not do it. That would be a disincentive, and they would find ways around the problem by, for example, putting the money into other products if necessary. For all I know, a lot more people might even join the Plymouth Brethren, to whom reference was made in our earlier discussion.
	The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would create a serious disincentive to men providing for their future. In the end, the breadwinner—even in this day and age, it is generally the man of the family—must make such provision. If there is a disincentive to save, he simply will not do it. A terrible credit gap exists, and it is already extremely difficult to convince people that they should not live on credit, and should put money aside for their retirement. It is very difficult to persuade them that they should be putting away far more, yet the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would achieve entirely the opposite objective.
	Frankly, I have heard nothing from the Opposition that answers those key points. If we accept the proposal, we will deprive people of their existing property rights. The Opposition have also failed to deal with the two extremely important points concerning retrospectivity and the disincentive to save. For those reasons, much as I agree with the principle of abolishing sex discrimination, I cannot support the proposal. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal with those points in his reply, but I doubt whether he can.

Ruth Kelly: Let me respond to what has been an incredibly interesting and informative debate on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the proposals to require insurance companies to offer unisex annuity rates. The first major question discussed today was the fundamental one: are women being short changed? My hon. Friends explored that point, which involves an interesting equality issue. Women receive a lower annuity rate year in, year out, but for longer than men, although over their life span they also receive, on average, cumulative amounts that are equal to or in excess of those received by men. We could debate that point for a long time, as there is no clear cut conclusion to it.
	I note the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that there is no satisfactory outcome, because if we imposed unisex annuity rates we would have to take from men to give to women. There is no other money that may be used to resolve those questions or to sweeten the pill for men. That is not an easy one, and in my view it is not clear that there is an equality issue to resolve at all.
	Gender is a recognised factor in the setting of risk premiums by insurance companies in many walks of life, and women are not queueing up to argue about receiving better car insurance rates, for example, because women as a group are less likely to commit motoring offences. As far as I am aware, that has not been contested in other areas.
	Gender is but one factor that insurance companies take into account when setting annuity rates and determining risk premiums. They also consider the general health of the individual, whether the individual has a disability and, controversially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon pointed out, the lifestyle of the person requesting an annuity.
	As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) remarked for the Opposition, insurance companies may also take into account whether someone is of a certain ethnic minority. Insurance companies have been specifically designed and set up to cater for certain ethnic minority groups, as they are able to offer higher rate annuity products to those people, recognising the fact that they have shorter life expectancy.
	The fact remains that insurance companies, as far as they possibly can, set rates on the basis of what they consider to be individual risk premiums. When they cannot set individual risk premiums, they look across broad classes, use proxy and set risk premiums on that basis.
	The ability of insurance companies to determine risk and to attach it as closely as possible to the individual determines their competitive advantage in an extremely competitive market. That is how insurance companies and the insurance market work, and to wander into such terrain without well thought out and coherent proposals would be foolhardy. It would also have ramifications and implications across the insurance industry.
	It is important to consider the impact that imposing unisex annuity rates would have on individual insurance companies. If insurance companies were forced to offer unisex rates, and only unisex rates, they could face an unpalatable choice. For reasons that I explained earlier, they might have to set cautiously low annuity rates, so everyone would lose out. The reason behind that is that companies could not be sure that take-up of their annuity products between males and females would match the risk that they assumed at the outset. In the end, everybody would lose out—not just men, but women would not gain as much as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) envisages. Alternatively, insurance companies could face risks to the solvency of their businesses. In that event too, everyone would risk losing out.
	Why is it desirable to force insurance companies to discount just one factor, when they can and do take account of many other factors? I am thinking of whether people smoke, the nature of their occupation, where they live, and any other factors that may be considered relevant to the setting of annuity rates. I do not think that we will solve the equality problem today by imposing unisex annuity rates on companies, or that we will solve some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon relating to incentives to save by that means. I certainly do not think that such action will create a more favourable environment for insurance companies.

Andrew Dismore: I mentioned the Human Rights Act earlier. Has the Attorney-General told the Government whether the amendments are in breach of it?

Ruth Kelly: Of course it is important for any amendments to be compatible with the Act. The points that my hon. Friend has made are very relevant, and it is at least debatable whether the amendments are compatible with the Act.
	For all the reasons I have given, I do not think that imposing unisex rates is a good idea. Many Members may agree with me. I therefore urge the House to accept the Government's proposals.

David Curry: I do not accept the amendments, for a very simple reason: we must start somewhere in our attempt to deal with these inequalities. I repeat the question I posed earlier to the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who have performed a wonderful Morecambe and Wise act today. Do they really think that, 10 years from now, we shall be able to sustain a system into which discrimination has been built? The idea that men are suffering in terms of human rights and that we should move in the opposite direction strikes me as wonderfully inventive in the context of a Friday matinee performance, but I feel that it lacks a great deal of intellectual and legal substance.

Andrew Dismore: My point about the Human Rights Act was a serious one. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he took legal advice before speaking today, and established whether the effective withdrawal of men's pension rights would be compatible with the Act.

David Curry: The process of government is a process of intervening in the way in which people live their lives and, in many ways, intervening in the market, as this Government know more than anything else. All legislation is capable of being tested on human rights grounds. I believe that if we stack up my beliefs and those of the hon. Gentleman, it will be seen that by and large the trend is going my way.
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

The House having divided: Ayes 15, Noes 56.

Question accordingly negatived.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have had to ask the Serjeant at Arms why Government Members were lingering unnecessarily in the Aye Lobby to prolong events. Were you aware that a figure no less than the Government Deputy Chief Whip was party to this and was indeed one of the last to leave the Aye Lobby reluctantly? Is there anything you can do to ensure that someone as senior as the Government Deputy Chief Whip sets a better example to hon. Members than to abuse the voting procedures—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must reply to the point of order and inform the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that all hon. Members should go through the Lobby in good order and time.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 16, leave out "must" and insert "may".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 8, 10 to 12, 20 and 24.

Ruth Kelly: We now come to the heart of the matter. The Bill makes it compulsory for a personal pension scheme to provide a minimum retirement annuity. This annuity has to meet a minimal level set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has to increase in line with the retail prices index although it will be capped at 5 per cent. and it has to be bought no later than age 65. This combination amounts to a maximum reduction in flexibility for the vast majority of pension scheme members.
	The Bill would remove people's current choice and instead force them to buy an index-linked annuity for each personal pension arrangement that they hold. That may not be what they want and it certainly may not be in their best interests. The opportunity, if various small personal pension arrangements are held, of taking different annuity types at different times, to spread risk, would be removed. Using their open market option for annuity purchase, people have the freedom to decide which type of annuity best suits their needs. The proposals in the Bill would take away that choice.
	The Bill would also require the annuity to be bought by age 65, so that most people would have no option to draw all their pension benefits from that age, whether retired or not—again, limiting choice. That would introduce inconsistency and unfairness, as the requirement to annuitise by 65 applies only to personal pensions and not to retirement annuity contracts or defined contribution money purchase occupational pension schemes, which are not affected.
	The age 65 rule also brings in a much larger issue. If people are saving in a personal pension scheme, they would not be able to contribute to it past 65, and would have to take an annuity from that age. Those who have not made provision earlier in their life or are still active and working would be allowed to continue in employment but not to save any of their earnings in pension schemes for their future retirement, unless they have a retirement annuity contract or are in an occupational pension scheme.

Barry Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend surprised, as I am, that the proposals in this part of the Bill so directly conflict with the flexibility that Conservative Members were seeking to introduce in the first group of amendments?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is at the heart of our objections to the Bill, which, while purporting to increase flexibility does exactly the opposite.

David Curry: How can a Bill that removes the requirement to annuitise the totality of the pension funds and restores choice be said to reduce flexibility?

Ruth Kelly: I admire the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has piloted the Bill, but I fear that he has misunderstood the heart of the Government's objections to it. The vast majority of pensioners would not be given the additional flexibility that he advocates. Their flexibility would be reduced because they would be forced to buy an annuity with their entire income by the age of 65. The average fund from which people buy annuities is currently £23,000.

David Curry: The argument about the size of the pot is becoming extremely futile. Many people have more than one pot, with money derived from SERPS or from occupational pension schemes, so the number of pots and the total that they add up to are what is at issue.

Ruth Kelly: I agree that the figure of £23,000 does not really capture the average size of people's total pension savings, but it gives an indication that the pension savings of the vast majority of people are nowhere near the level at which the Bill would introduce greater flexibility. People would have their choice restricted and be forced to buy an index-linked annuity from the age of 65. That is why the amendment would make the minimum retirement income annuity an option for those who want it.

Barry Gardiner: In support of my hon. Friend's remarks about the level of income and the number of people affected, I refer her to the report "Targeting the Savings Gap", by Oliver Wyman and Co. It shows that the income figure goes from 85 per cent. for the first decile, down to 33 per cent. for the 10th decile.

Ruth Kelly: I am certainly aware of those figures.
	Amendment No. 10 merely tidies up the wording, so I will not dwell on it.
	Index-linked annuities will guarantee that the purchasing power of the pension will not be eroded by inflation, but as with all guarantees—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 May.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

MOTOR VEHICLES (PROHIBITION ON USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES) BILL
	Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

Jim Dowd: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you inform me and the House whether there is any mechanism by which the official record can show that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), the Government Whip, who objected to that Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that those comments have been noted.

RIGHT TO SELF-EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 10 May

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND REMEDIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 10 May

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

ENDANGERED SPECIES (ILLEGAL TRADE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July

MUSEUMS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July. PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS) BILL
	Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 10 May

BROADCASTING ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June

FOOD LABELLING BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [2 November].

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate further adjourned till Friday 21 June

PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATORS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Brian White: I begin by commiserating with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry having to be present on a Friday afternoon and for drawing the short straw and so having to reply to this debate.
	When I requested this debate a few weeks ago, I caused consternation in the Table Office and across various Departments mainly because the subject does not fit neatly within the remit of only one Department—in fact, it relates to a myriad. In order to secure the debate, I had to change its title. My first point, therefore, is that regulators have grown ad hoc. Their powers, terms of reference, relationship to the Government and accountability are all slightly different, and over recent years they have mushroomed. What we have today has developed from an ad hoc, incremental approach. Each new regulatory system has been a different variation on reinventing the wheel. I shall argue that, although we have enjoyed some benefits from such a system, now is the right time to review it and to try to introduce some coherence. We have a wealth of experience on which to draw—some good, some bad.
	I suppose that I had better define at the outset what I mean by "regulators". A narrow definition would cover only the former public utilities of gas, water, electricity and telecoms, but the regulatory function goes far wider than that. Organisations such as the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the lottery and rail regulators all have regulatory functions. In the health service, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and half a dozen other bodies carry out some aspect of regulation. I shall consider bodies such as the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission shortly.
	Debates about regulation tend to polarise opinion around whether we have too much regulation. I do not believe that we have time today to stray into that territory except to emphasise that the work of the better regulation taskforce is to be commended. However, it has only begun to scratch the surface. Regulation will not go away, and the debate should be about its style, content and application, for example, whether it is full blooded, light touch, co-regulation, self-regulation, or the application of reserve powers, which will be more common in future.
	Let us concentrate for a moment on the narrow definition. There has been tremendous change since the first regulators were established with British Telecom. They were set up to tackle incumbent monopoly, but today's economic landscape is totally different, and EU directives will make economic regulators examine issues such as market dominance. There are also arrangements for individual regulators in different countries to work together. In future, those regulators, working together, will have an impact on our lives outside normal Government and Council of Ministers decision making. We need to consider that.
	Overall, the economy is doing well and that is likely to continue. However, there are several blockages in the micro-economy that have an impact on the quality of life; regulators make decisions that affect ordinary lives. Let us consider the current controversy about Ofgem's proposals for pre-payment meters. The relaxation of regulatory controls anticipates a functioning, competitive market rather than responding to its emergence. Ofgem's primary role seems to be developing competition as a goal in itself rather than a means of protecting vulnerable groups.
	The free market approach has been the Whitehall orthodoxy for some time. We do it automatically without thinking and assume that it is good rather than ascertaining the circumstances in which it is appropriate and those in which we should adopt a different approach. The renewables industry's current problems and its representations to the Chancellor to try to protect some of the combined heat and power companies in next week's Budget is a good example of that.
	When we hit a problem, we find that we have devolved decision making to the independent regulator, but the responsibility does not leave the Government, who continue to pick up the flak without having the tools to deal with problems effectively. That applies in the case of the Rail Regulator, the Financial Services Authority in respect of Equitable Life, which was mentioned earlier today, and the lottery licensee, to give only three examples. The only remedy is primary legislation, and the Minister knows only too well that that is difficult to obtain.
	I should like the Government to examine the assumption that an independent regulator is de facto a good idea. I accept the need for independence, and I do not argue for a return to day-to-day political interference. If people are to regain trust in governance, they must have faith in the information that they have been given. There must be strict rules and transparency. However, there are drawbacks and I want the Government to consider how we deal with them. If the appointments process is the only sanction, problems arise such as those that the Select Committee on Public Administration is currently considering.
	The Government have rightly moved away from individual regulators to a more collegiate approach. The FSA and Ofcom are clear examples of that. For too long, we have had individual regulators, and Oftel under Don Cruickshank is a different beast from that body under Dave Edmonds. Ofgem under Callum McCarthy was different from Offer under Professor Fairchild or Ofgas under Clare Spottiswoode. I am not commenting on quality, but Ofgas was not prepared to examine environmental considerations under Clare Spottiswoode—that was her decision—whereas Offer under Professor Fairchild was prepared to do so. If we compare Ofsted with the prison inspectorate, it is apparent that the characters of the individual regulators led to the consequences that ensued. A board leads to less maverick interpretations and a more independent point of view.
	Regulators in Europe operate in a clearer, more transparent framework. We have a tendency not to learn from other countries, and to think that because we started it we know best. However, central bank independence and the way we have run the economy show that we have learned lessons and benefited from them. The Government are to be commended for learning those lessons and applying them here.
	Because there is an assumption that independent regulators are a good thing, the automatic answer is to have a regulator, but that assumption is not necessarily correct and I ask the Minister to accept that there is a need to challenge it.
	There is a need for regulators to provide proper information, but the problem is that some of the information provided by the companies is commercial in confidence. The result is that regulators become very close to the companies. They become captured by the provider culture rather than looking at the matter from an end-user perspective. In fact, companies have actually poached staff from the regulators' office. The regulators are then much more dependent on the companies that they are supposed to be regulating. That is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
	The National Audit Office issued its "Pipes and Wires" report this week on how the utilities regulators have worked. They have been very good at achieving lower prices and improving efficiency, but that is the only measure of success. The report talks about what happens when the regulator gets it wrong. Ofwat was criticised in April 2000. The report says:
	"Estimating an excessive return entails customers paying unnecessary costs while estimating too low a return may discourage investors from providing funds to regulated companies, thus potentially making it difficult for companies to meet their obligations".
	The RPI minus X formula that regulators have used has worked quite well in the initial stages following a monopoly, but, as many companies have found, when they concentrate solely on efficiency savings, they hit the law of diminishing returns. The danger is that we are at the point where we may be hitting the law of diminishing returns for this particular price control mechanism. The issue of long-term investment is highlighted by the debate over broadband and the contrast between Germany and the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why we are in danger of missing the boat.
	The creation of the Office of Public Services Reform is a major step forward. It has a role to play in reviewing the interaction between the regulators and the Government.
	One of the ways in which the Government have sought to counter this provider-centric approach, under the Utilities Act 2000, was to make customers Ofgem's primary focus. Ofwat and Oftel still have customer focus as a secondary objective, and that remains a concern. For a number of the other public service regulators, customer focus is not even on the agenda.
	While regulators focus on the economic side, they are making value judgments. Under the Utilities Act, the Government gave themselves a reserve power to require cross-subsidy if they concluded that the benefits of competition were not being shared by all consumers. As the Energywatch campaign on pre-payment meters shows, low-income customers are not getting the benefits of the existing regime and, as the Minister for Industry and Energy has pointed out, would lose out under the removal of price controls. Can the Under-Secretary tell us the circumstances in which she would use those reserve powers? It seems to me that the present circumstances represent the kind of fallback situation for which the Utilities Act was designed.
	If the independence of regulators means that the Government's only powers are to talk to the regulator or the nuclear option of replacement, what is there to ensure that regulators help to achieve the Government's objectives, or at least do not frustrate them? That is a real problem. I tabled a number of amendments during the proceedings on the Utilities Act to help the renewables system. At the time, the Government said that they would provide guidance on environmental and social objectives to the regulators. That guidance has not been forthcoming. I am a believer in the cock-up theory of life, rather than the conspiracy theory, so I am sure that there is a very good reason for that. However, if the Government were to issue the guidance now—I would be interested to know when they are likely to do so—how would it affect the way of working that Ofgem has already set in stone? If it does not properly take effect, there will be very little point in issuing it, but proper guidance will have implications for other regulators and their relationship with the Government.
	I have concentrated on independence because I do not believe that we have thought through the issues. I believe that a regulator is not only about regulation but about the monitoring and provision of information, and should be a catalyst to change. It is also an adviser to the Government and should undertake its work in the context of modernising government and achieving better regulation initiatives.
	It has often been proposed that, because we have a number of regulators, they should be merged into one, but I do not think that that is necessarily the best way forward. One problem is that our small companies, niche players and market entrants often do not get a look in, as the regulators tend to talk to the larger companies that have specialist staff for that purpose. We also get into a game in which the competitors automatically complain and the dominant players automatically appeal against any decision. In today's economy, speed of decision making is vital. In respect of new technologies, it is even more important. I am concerned that the RPI minus X formula needs to be reviewed if we are to move our regulators forward.
	I firmly believe that regulators need to move to a much more coherent and transparent framework. They need to be providers of impartial and understandable information, and to have a complete range of sanctions that are more coherent than the individual sanctions that some of them currently use. They need to be seen to reduce costs, or at least not to add to regulatory burdens. We need also to redefine the relationship between Government and regulator, and the relationship with service users and the industry. In other words, we should consider the nature of decision making. We need a mixture of roles to ensure that staff are not tied to the provider culture that I mentioned earlier and are sufficient to tackle the end-user focuses.
	There are plenty of examples of good practice, including the work of the Environment Agency and the Audit Commission, but we have also had problems with regulation. Too often, we have designed complicated routines that seek to cover the whole area, rather than tried to identify risk and apply a light touch. Everybody says that we need light-touch regulation, but we very rarely achieve it. We need quicker decision making with shorter appeal mechanisms and regulators that have good knowledge and a clear focus on the key issues, and are not involved in turf wars.
	In conclusion, there has been an assumption that the creation of independent regulators is a good thing in its own right. It is now time for us to switch from that producer mentality to a focus on the end user. The question is not how we tackle company X, but what is done for the citizen. Times have changed and regulators need to move on. What was right in the past is not necessarily right now. The Michael Lyons/Ian Byatt study for the Treasury is a very useful step forward, as is the NAO report. With the imminent publication of the Communications Bill, now is the right time for the Government to step back and consider the whole regulatory environment, what has worked in the past and the challenges for the future. I do not expect an immediate reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but I hope she will accept that there is an issue that the Government need to consider.

Melanie Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on securing this debate and on managing to find a title that met the needs of the House. He raised a number of issues covering a wide range of bodies. I may disappoint him to some extent, as I shall obviously need to focus on some of those bodies. As a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, it has struck me that I might focus on the regulatory bodies that relate to my Department and especially the utility regulators, which are at the heart of his concerns. He will appreciate that I cannot cover the wide-ranging brief with which he dealt.
	I take my hon. Friend's point that different regulators are set up in different ways, but there is a reason for that. It is understandable, given that different sectors have different characteristics and policy objectives. Neither I nor the Government believe in a one-size-fits-all model.
	One of my hon. Friend's principal questions was whether the current regulatory structure is correct—in particular, is it right to have independent regulators at arm's length from the Government, and is it right to give them so much freedom and discretion? Those are important issues, but they are not new, as my hon. Friend would agree. They were considered as part of the work that was done in preparation for the Utilities Act 2000, which he knows well from having served on the Committee that considered the Bill.
	The Government launched a review of utility regulation on coming to power in 1997. That was a major exercise involving substantial analysis and consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. It dealt with the role of the regulators and endorsed the existing framework, as did the Government's Green Paper, "A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation", which explicitly considered the role of regulators. It stated:
	"The regulatory regimes for the utility sectors, established at the time of privatisation were built on the principle that economic regulation must be conducted on an arms-length basis by independent regulators. We endorse this. Within the framework set by Ministers it is vital that regulators should be given the independence and discretion necessary to make economic decisions, for example on price reviews."
	On Wednesday this week, the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill provided more evidence that the Government are taking the right steps to put regulators on a fully independent basis in relation to competition regulation.
	A structure with independent regulators at arm's length from the Government helps to reduce regulatory risk and to provide a stable climate for investment. That is vitally important, because these sectors are characterised by extensive physical networks and are highly capital-intensive. Let me illustrate that with some figures from the National Audit Office's report "Pipes and Wires", which was published this week—my hon. Friend has already referred to it. That report sees the regulatory framework as a great success story. It says that the electricity transmission and distribution assets in England and Wales are valued at £16.5 billion and that the combined value of the 23 water and sewerage companies in England and Wales is £30 billion. A significant proportion of the ongoing costs of running such businesses is based on the financing costs for the assets. The greater the certainty about the regulatory system, the less expensive the financing costs. The end result is that regulatory certainty feeds through into lower bills to customers.
	The regulatory system for these industries has already delivered significant benefits to customers in the form of price reductions as well as improved services. Regulatory independence is a vital part of the system.

Brian White: The regulatory system protects and works well for existing companies, but new market entrants and very small players lose out. Have the Government considered that, as well as the totality of the regulatory regime, which is right in principle?

Melanie Johnson: It is difficult to generalise across such a wide area, but all the issues are kept under review. The way in which the system is working is constantly monitored in any given sector, but, as I said, they are all different and have different characteristics. Different issues may arise even in capital-intensive areas such as the main utilities. As for new entrants coming into the markets, the competition authorities must also help to ensure that that is always possible.
	As well as paying the financing costs of previous investments, companies must be able to access capital in order to make new investments. There has been significant investment in the industries since they were privatised. For example, according to the National Audit Office, more than £31 billion has gone into the gas and electricity industries, more than £50 billion into water, and similar amounts into telecommunications. These figures compare very favourably to the investment in the decades before privatisation. Further investment is still required as we go forward. The regulatory certainty provided by having independent regulators gives investors the confidence to provide money for vital investment in these industries.
	Giving regulators independence is not about giving them carte blanche to do things however they please. The fundamental principle is that Government set out an overall regulatory framework through legislation. This sets out the overall parameters by which regulators are to operate, constraining their discretion. Regulators must carry out their responsibilities according to a set of objectives or statutory duties. Having set this overall framework, Ministers can then rightly take a step back, removing politicians from day-to-day decision making, thus giving business greater confidence.
	None the less, Government remain responsible for the framework as a whole and will still take an active interest in whether the system is operating properly. Frameworks evolve over time, following the appropriate consultation and parliamentary process. They are not set in stone for ever. As my hon. Friend has said, we have moved on from the model of a one-person regulator to regulatory boards. This helps give greater predictability to decision making and reduces the risk of significant policy shifts when the head of an organisation changes.
	I shall take up some of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised. He referred to social and environmental guidance. I am pleased that he believes that the delay in issuing guidance is for justifiable reason. The Department has consulted on drafts of the guidance and is now considering the matter afresh in the light of the energy review report that was published on 14 February by the performance and innovation unit, which has implications for the guidance.
	We have made it clear that that is not the method for implementing social and environmental policies, which would have significant financial implications. Where such implications are at stake, the Government need to take forward such policies by introducing appropriate legislation. Examples of this would be the vulnerable groups regulation in the water industry, the requirement to provide free postal services for the blind or partially sighted, or the renewables obligation in electricity.
	My hon. Friend is clearly interested in renewables, so I shall say more about the subject in response to his remarks. As an example, the renewables obligation is the Government's single most important measure to develop the increased uptake of renewables electricity. We have set a target of 10 per cent. renewables electricity by 2010, and from 1 April licensed electricity suppliers are required to provide an increasing proportion of their supplies from renewable sources.
	Ofgem is administering this arrangement for us. It is accrediting generating stations to ensure that they meet the eligibility criteria of obligation, issuing renewables obligation certificates, or ROCs, for renewable electricity actually supplied and assessing and monitoring suppliers' compliance with the obligation.
	Ofgem will also recycle to electricity suppliers the buy-out payments that can be made by suppliers, in proportion to the number of ROCs that each supplier has presented compared to the number presented overall. Ofgem has also played a key role in working with the Department on the drafting of the necessary legislation to introduce the renewables obligation. That illustrates that a regulator can be involved in taking forward Government environmental policies, playing an invaluable role in helping the UK reduce its greenhouse gas emissions through the greater use of renewable energy.
	My hon. Friend referred to RPI-X, and that is shorthand. The system of price regulation that regulators use now has been developed significantly from the formulas that were used at the outset of privatisation. I am sure that my hon. Friend would recognise that fact. The NAO is much aware that some observers claim that RPI-X is no longer appropriate. However, its report notes how regulators are already working to address risks in the system, and they suggest further improvements. The National Audit Office is certainly not advocating abandoning the system, which has served us well so far and delivered significant investment as well as price cuts.
	I turn to another point that my hon. Friend raised, which is the question of cross-subsidy powers in the Utilities Act 2000. For me to access the powers to require suppliers to adjust charges where particular groups of consumers are treated less favourably than others under sections 68 and 98 of the Act, there must be evidence of disadvantage. Ofgem's position is that pre-payment meter customers will not be penalised by increased prices as a result of the removal of price caps.
	There is no evidence that the position of pre-payment customers in relation to standard credit customers and that of standard credit customers in relation to direct debit customers has worsened. Indeed, I am pleased to say that during 2001 it marginally improved. If pre-payment meter customers are not disadvantaged within the meaning of the cross-subsidy regulations, I would have no basis for accessing those provisions. Like Ofgem, we monitor developments in the market, but I stress that the cross-subsidy provisions are very much reserve powers.
	It is interesting that my hon. Friend thinks that we need to address the problems caused by the independence of regulators. Certainly not everyone shares that view. Last year, the better regulation taskforce published a report on economic regulation which looked at that issue. The taskforce found that some stakeholders felt that Government needed to do more to underpin the independence of the regulators. My hon. Friend raises his points for understandable reasons. The Government have objectives in these industries, and it is important to look at how best to achieve them.
	I pick up my hon. Friend's point about assessing risk and ensuring that regulation has as light a touch as possible. I confirm that it is the Government's view that risk is a relevant issue in all areas where regulation is proposed. It is certainly the Government's view that regulators need to ensure that the touch that they apply in order to achieve competition and level playing fields is as light as possible—indeed, that is implemented by regulators.
	When I was a Treasury Minister, the Financial Services Authority was set up with exactly those parameters at the heart of the way it works. It has been operating under those since it became a fully fledged body at the end of last year.
	I firmly believe in the need for independent regulators to give us a predictable and stable framework. That is not to say that regulation should not be mindful of the wider context in which regulatory decisions take place. The Ofgem social action plan and environmental action plan are examples of initiatives taken by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to consult on and establish its own work plan in areas that reflect the contemporary needs of society. That complements the guidance that will be given by Government on their social and environmental objectives.
	However, Parliament has given only very specific powers to the sectoral regulators, and specific objectives to tackle a defined area of work. The sectoral regulators are neither equipped nor intended to develop and implement policy on their own behalf on issues, however important, which touch on the regulated utility sectors.
	There is a clear need for Government, as well as the sectoral regulators, closely to monitor developments in the markets. There are important initiatives on which it is right that Government should work closely with the sectoral regulators and with the industries to bring changes to the utility market frameworks. As we have shown, it is right that Government should take the opportunity to address the need for change in legislation where that is necessary but the role of Government in markets should be guided by the need for transparency and a self-denying ordnance to avoid short-term reaction to what may be symptoms of longer-term problems with the market framework.
	I believe that the utilities review—
	The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at two minutes past Three o'clock.